Jump to content

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Dimadick (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 27 December 2024 (→Biased Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (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

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]
The circumstantial evidence for a lab leak is overwhelming. Here are some facts we know:
(1) The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) received US tax payer funding from 2014 through 2019 in the amount of $1.4 million.
(2) One of the missions of the WIV was to investigate viruses that could potentially cause an outbreak in humans, and create a vaccine to prevent it.
(3) The WIV research focused on bat coronaviruses, and how they could be modified to bind to human cells.
(4) The SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan province of China, with the first 'confirmed' case in December of 2019.
(5) Ben Hu, a researcher at the WIV, came down with an unspecified respiratory illness in November 2019, and symptoms were consistent with coronavirus infection.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-funded-scientist-among-three-chinese-researchers-who-fell-ill-amid-early-covid-19-outbreak-3f919567?fbclid=IwY2xjawGwB-BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYxHGgHnjmN4m2RRkrKmG2cc9_0VDMyRwF3m5sDkm9HWSNaU6apyTLI0Pw_aem_-n_e9bR59mzyygjKndzUhg Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is fringe nonsense and misinformation. In any case this is not the article about the lab leak; that's COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's "nonsense and misinformation" because you said so? I provided a source. All you did was make a baseless criticism. And obviously it is relevant to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 because the lab leak theory postulates that the virus is the result of a lab-modified coronavirus that escaped. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wall Street Journal is not known for accurate information on scientific topics. Instead, it is known for spreading anti-science conspiracy theories such as climate change denial. You need a better source which uses better reasoning than the same old post hoc ergo propter hoc circumstantial evidence that has been the foundation of the lab leakery from the beginning (I fell after a black cat crossed my path... I got better after I took homeopathic stuff... the city where the outbreak started has a lab), and no fairy tales [5]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than address the claims made by the source, you dismiss the source itself as if by divine fiat. The only one you discredit is yourself. If you don't have anything to back up your rebuke, then stay out of the discussion. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a crap source. Stop pushing it. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an argument. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a fact though. Newspaper articles and the output of partisan politicians are both essentially useless for reporting on scientific matters (and most other properly academic areas). Wikipedia articles need to stop using such rubbish. Keep them for Pokemon articles, but stop pushing them where they don't belong. These are not appropriate sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic fallacy. Also, the content of the article is not inherently scientific because the scientific details are not discussed and are irrelevant to the points made. Is anyone suggesting that you need a microbiology degree to learn and report on, for example, one or more of the overarching missions of an organization? That's beyond absurd. I don't need an education in astrophysics to know that NASA has sent rockets into space. The fact is that nobody who has objected to the OP has leveled any meaningful counterarguments whatsoever, and the most plausible reason why is that they are unwilling or unable to do the legwork to address the points made. That is why you and others attack the abstract with utterly nonsensical and fallacious non-arguments in a display of outright hypocrisy. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the rules. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on unreliable ones. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need an education in astrophysics to know that NASA has sent rockets into space. But when you write a Wikipedia article describing the moon landings and your sources are newspaper reports, you will not be writing an encyclopaedic article. If you cite the news reporting, you will be writing a history essay, and the article will be a synthesis of the sources, a secondary source, not a tertiary one (which is what an encyclopaedic article is); and if you use a newspaper's write up of the history, you will find you are using a tertiary source, not a secondary source. And this happens a lot. Way too much. Which is why we have WP:BESTSOURCES which sits there on the WP:NPOV page. Which is Wikipedia policy. Have a read of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep them for Pokemon articles" We can use much better sources on Pokemon articles than the misinformation spread by politicians. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final report of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

[edit]

This report by the US Congress Subcommitee has some relevance to the subject of several SARS-CoV-2-related articles. Specifically, it states that "SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, likely emerged because of a laboratory or research related accident."
(I'm mostly using this comment to highlight this report's existence and to invite discussion on how much/where it should be cited) TinyClayMan (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just mad US politics. So safe to ignore. In time some rational secondary sourcing may appear. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually read the report. It is a secondary source with footnotes citing scientific papers and congressional hearings from researchers. It seems to be a high quality report as well. Databased (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance it's just the same dumb nonsense the LL stans have been trotting out for ages. Wait till something reliable comes along (and for scientific subjects, political grandstanding ain't that). Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We report what the reliable sources say, regardless of your personal biases. I recommend you take more than a "quick glance" at it again, before being overly dismissive while talking in memes. Databased (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point rotting the brain reading unusable sources, and politicians for science are just that. This is meant to be a serious encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you're not going to take this seriously, I'm just going to ignore you. Please don't reply to me again. Databased (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is regretful that Wikipedia keeps destroying its reputation by falsely insisting that the lab leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. This might be a good time to admit mistakes by Wikipedia and start repairing damage done to the public trust. 85.238.103.51 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A claim in the lead has problems

[edit]

Regarding the claim in the lead SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to multiple previously identified bat coronaviruses, suggesting it crossed over into humans from bats.

1) Style guidelines (MOS:LEADCITE) prescribe the use of the minimal necessary number of citations. It is inappropriate to have so many citations without a compelling reason.
2) These sources are all primary research (except perhaps the Pearlman article, but it's an "editorial", not a systematic meta-analysis and comes from early 2020 when there were "more than 800 recorded cases"), thus violating Wikipedia:No original research

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how genetic similarity suggests "crossing over from that species". Humans are highly genetically similar to chimpanzees, but did not "cross over" from them. A more obvious suggestion is that two genetically similar species share a common ancestor. The knowledge that SARS-CoV-2 and bat coronaviruses share a common ancestor is pretty mainstream. It may take a few more years before we have ten-year old review articles on this, but there are plenty of citations out there that are adequately WP:MEDRS. So the claim certainly does not have problems. If you don't like the current references, find a better or more recent reference(s) and be bold. Jaredroach (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to be bold in this case, I would start by removing the faulty citations and then flag the claim as unverified, since actually there's only a 96% match between COVID-19 and whatever virus they found in the wild. The whole zoonotic hypothesis hangs on the sheer speculation that there's an intermediate species out there somewhere that harbored the virus while it mutated. They criticize the lab leak hypothesis as lacking direct evidence while meanwhile the zoonotic hypothesis also lacks the direct evidence it would require: isolating COVID-19 in a living animal, any living animal, somewhere in the wildlife supply chain to the Wuhan market.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the usual similarity between a zoonotic virus in humans and its closest known relative in other animals? I have no idea whether 96% is close or not, and I have no business of injecting any opinions based on my ignorance into the article. Neither have you. Reliable sources make such decisions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one has it: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7537588/ Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military World Games

[edit]

The article does not seem to mention the controversy that the virus was possibly detected at the 2019 Military World Games in October 2019, 2 months before it was supposedly first spread via the food market. This seems critical to understanding the virus's origins. 51.155.125.90 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because no reliable source entertains that notion. Bon courage (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty sources

[edit]

Ref. #3 is non-MEDRS purporting to support a biomedical claim (a newspaper article).

Ref. #5 non-MEDRS is a press release about a peer-reviewed study but doesn't provide the actual study.

Refs #6 & 7 are primary sources

Ref # 8 is a New York Times article being used to support the claim that "the virus was derived from a bat-borne virus and most likely was transmitted to humans via another animal in nature, or during wildlife bushmeat trade such as that in food markets."

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "there have been efforts by scientists, governments, and others" to find an origin is not WP:BMI. It is also trivially true. Bon courage (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Similar to other outbreaks,[1][2][3] the virus was derived from a bat-borne virus. This is definitely BMI. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No direct progenitor virus found in the wild

[edit]

Propose adding in the section on Zoonosis:

"While investigations into the virus's origins included extensive sampling of wildlife and bats in China, no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 has been conclusively identified in these samples."[1][2] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem a bit cherry picked without also included that the basis of the source is that the virus was the result of natural zoonosis (and the the likelihood of future such events is increasing as a result of environmental factors). Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that it was important context for the intermediate host information. But I don't mind if you want to just stick that info in the zoonosis section with a hedged statement like "While investigations into the virus's origins included extensive sampling of wildlife and bats in China, no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 has been conclusively identified in these samples. However, the same studies emphasize that the virus is consistent with a natural zoonotic origin and highlight the increasing risk of similar spillover events in the future due to environmental factors such as habitat destruction and increased human-animal interactions." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Voskarides, K. SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution. BMC Med Genomics 15, 62 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w
  2. ^ "Virus origin / Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". WHO. Retrieved 23 June 2021. WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Edit Request: Bat Origin Source

[edit]

Change SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to multiple previously identified bat coronaviruses, suggesting it crossed over into humans from bats.[1][2][3][4][5] to: SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to multiple previously identified bat coronaviruses, suggesting it crossed over into humans from bats.[6] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I have removed the sentence entirely, since bat origin is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Bon courage (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Proximal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Latinne, Alice; Hu, Ben; Olival, Kevin J.; Zhu, Guangjian; Zhang, Libiao; Li, Hongying; Chmura, Aleksei A.; Field, Hume E.; Zambrana-Torrelio, Carlos; Epstein, Jonathan H.; Li, Bei; Zhang, Wei; Wang, Lin-Fa; Shi, Zheng-Li; Daszak, Peter (25 August 2020). "Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 4235. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4235L. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17687-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7447761. PMID 32843626.
  3. ^ Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, Si HR, Zhu Y, Li B, Huang CL, Chen HD, Chen J, Luo Y, Guo H, Jiang RD, Liu MQ, Chen Y, Shen XR, Wang X, Zheng XS, Zhao K, Chen QJ, Deng F, Liu LL, Yan B, Zhan FX, Wang YY, Xiao GF, Shi ZL (February 2020). "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". Nature. 579 (7798): 270–273. Bibcode:2020Natur.579..270Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7. PMC 7095418. PMID 32015507.
  4. ^ Perlman S (February 2020). "Another Decade, Another Coronavirus". The New England Journal of Medicine. 382 (8): 760–762. doi:10.1056/NEJMe2001126. PMC 7121143. PMID 31978944.
  5. ^ Benvenuto D, Giovanetti M, Ciccozzi A, Spoto S, Angeletti S, Ciccozzi M (April 2020). "The 2019-new coronavirus epidemic: Evidence for virus evolution". Journal of Medical Virology. 92 (4): 455–459. doi:10.1002/jmv.25688. PMC 7166400. PMID 31994738.
  6. ^ Hu, B.; Guo, H.; Zhou, P.; Shi, Z. L. (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7537588/. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMID 33024307.

Edit Request: Remove or tag non-MEDRS citation

[edit]

In the following passage:

Similar to other outbreaks,[1][2][3] the virus was derived from a bat-borne virus and most likely was transmitted to humans via another animal in nature, or during wildlife bushmeat trade such as that in food markets.[11]

Request to remove citation Janicki, Julia; Scarr, Simon; Tai, Catherine (2 March 2021). "Bats and the origin of outbreaks". Reuters. Retrieved 31 March 2023. or apply the [unreliable medical source?] tag. It appears as [3] in the article, or [9] on this page.

Reason: It is a newspaper article (non-peer reviewed, primary source) cited for a biomedical claim: Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TarnishedPathtalk 02:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aguirre, A. Alonso; Catherina, Richard; Frye, Hailey; Shelley, Louise (September 2020). "Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: Preventing Future Pandemics". World Medical & Health Policy. 12 (3): 256–265. doi:10.1002/wmh3.348. ISSN 1948-4682. PMC 7362142. PMID 32837772.
  2. ^ Khan, Shahneaz Ali; Imtiaz, Mohammed Ashif; Islam, Md Mazharul; Tanzin, Abu Zubayer; Islam, Ariful; Hassan, Mohammad Mahmudul (10 May 2022). "Major bat-borne zoonotic viral epidemics in Asia and Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Veterinary Medicine and Science. 8 (4): 1787–1801. doi:10.1002/vms3.835. ISSN 2053-1095. PMC 9297750. PMID 35537080.
  3. ^ Janicki, Julia; Scarr, Simon; Tai, Catherine (2 March 2021). "Bats and the origin of outbreaks". Reuters. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
  4. ^ "Virus origin / Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". WHO. Retrieved 23 June 2021. WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2
  5. ^ "The COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin, scientists say – Scripps Research's analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS‑CoV‑2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered". EurekAlert!. Scripps Research Institute. 17 March 2020. Archived from the original on 11 May 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  6. ^ Latinne, Alice; Hu, Ben; Olival, Kevin J.; Zhu, Guangjian; Zhang, Libiao; Li, Hongying; Chmura, Aleksei A.; Field, Hume E.; Zambrana-Torrelio, Carlos; Epstein, Jonathan H.; Li, Bei; Zhang, Wei; Wang, Lin-Fa; Shi, Zheng-Li; Daszak, Peter (25 August 2020). "Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 4235. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4235L. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17687-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7447761. PMID 32843626.
  7. ^ Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF (17 March 2020). "Correspondence: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT_Scientists_Calls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Hu, Ben; Guo, Hua; Zhou, Peng; Shi, Zheng-Li (6 October 2020). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. ISSN 1740-1526. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  10. ^ Kramer, Jillian (30 March 2021). "Here's what the WHO report found on the origins of COVID-19". Science. Archived from the original on 31 March 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2021. Most scientists are not surprised by the report's conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 most likely jumped from an infected bat or pangolin to another animal and then to a human.
  11. ^ This assessment has been made by numerous virologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, professional societies, and published in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Edit Request: remove or tag citation #4 (non-MEDRS)

[edit]

Reference 4 (EurekAlert! press release, hidden as a sub-citation that pops up when you hover over citation 10) is deficient. The claim in the article is a biomedical claim : Similar to other outbreaks,[1][2] the virus was derived from a bat-borne virus and most likely was transmitted to humans via another animal in nature, or during wildlife bushmeat trade such as that in food markets.[10]

Reasons:

•The source is a press release

•The study referenced in the source is primary research.

Request: Remove the citation or flag it with an appropriate tag (e.g., [unreliable medical source?].) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Protection has been downgraded to semi. It should now be possible to make the removal yourself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lardlegwarmers, if you've identified specific sources that you believe are unsuitable can you please just remove them or use inline tags as you've proposed here? Using an article-wide tag like you have makes it harder to find which sources you believe are problematic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary for the article-wide tag included reference to my talk page entry on "Faulty Sources", which was my basis for applying the tag. There are also other non-RS in the article and I have begun removing them. In some cases, there are now claims with no references and they will be tagged as "source needed". The primary sources in the article are self-evident. Refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aguirre, A. Alonso; Catherina, Richard; Frye, Hailey; Shelley, Louise (September 2020). "Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: Preventing Future Pandemics". World Medical & Health Policy. 12 (3): 256–265. doi:10.1002/wmh3.348. ISSN 1948-4682. PMC 7362142. PMID 32837772.
  2. ^ Khan, Shahneaz Ali; Imtiaz, Mohammed Ashif; Islam, Md Mazharul; Tanzin, Abu Zubayer; Islam, Ariful; Hassan, Mohammad Mahmudul (10 May 2022). "Major bat-borne zoonotic viral epidemics in Asia and Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Veterinary Medicine and Science. 8 (4): 1787–1801. doi:10.1002/vms3.835. ISSN 2053-1095. PMC 9297750. PMID 35537080.
  3. ^ "Virus origin / Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". WHO. Retrieved 23 June 2021. WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2
  4. ^ "The COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin, scientists say – Scripps Research's analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS‑CoV‑2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered". EurekAlert!. Scripps Research Institute. 17 March 2020. Archived from the original on 11 May 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  5. ^ Latinne, Alice; Hu, Ben; Olival, Kevin J.; Zhu, Guangjian; Zhang, Libiao; Li, Hongying; Chmura, Aleksei A.; Field, Hume E.; Zambrana-Torrelio, Carlos; Epstein, Jonathan H.; Li, Bei; Zhang, Wei; Wang, Lin-Fa; Shi, Zheng-Li; Daszak, Peter (25 August 2020). "Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 4235. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4235L. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17687-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7447761. PMID 32843626.
  6. ^ Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF (17 March 2020). "Correspondence: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT_Scientists_Calls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Hu, Ben; Guo, Hua; Zhou, Peng; Shi, Zheng-Li (6 October 2020). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. ISSN 1740-1526. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  9. ^ Kramer, Jillian (30 March 2021). "Here's what the WHO report found on the origins of COVID-19". Science. Archived from the original on 31 March 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2021. Most scientists are not surprised by the report's conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 most likely jumped from an infected bat or pangolin to another animal and then to a human.
  10. ^ This assessment has been made by numerous virologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, professional societies, and published in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Merger discussion

[edit]

According to this discussion topic, this article will eventually be merged with Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility of major scientific journals on Covid

[edit]

In Current Science, author Padmanabhan Balaram called into question the "credibility" of the major peer-reviewed journals that Wikipedia uses as authoritative to verify claims about Covid-19.[1]

References

  1. ^ Balaram, P. (2021). "The murky origins of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic." Current Science, 120(11), 1663–1666. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/120/11/1663.pdf

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Science is a middling journal [6] whose editor in chief happens to work for the same place as the author. In the last 20 years, only three (3) of their articles have been listed in PubMed.[7] Their website (http://www.currentscience.ac.in/) appears to be broken at the moment.
And, of most importance, the article you've cited is three years old, which for COVID-19 means that it's three years out of date.
By the way, whenever someone claims that major medical journals are not credible in general, it's been my experience that what follows either looks like a conspiracy theory ("they're hiding the cure for cancer!") or a psychotic disorder ("they're trying to control my mind!"). I'm not saying that it's either of those things in this case – I could imagine, for example, an author making such a comment if he's is feeling unfairly treated by a bruising peer-review report – but it has never been a statement that makes me consider such a speaker to be a credible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this source has made me wonder is whether this belief is more common in India. At a glance, it looks like all citations to this paper come from Indian researchers. India and China are long-standing geopolitical rivals. Perhaps anti-China sentiment, and therefore a willingness to believe anything bad about China, is as common in India now as anti-Soviet sentiment, and a willingness to believe anything bad about Moscow, was in the US during the Cold War? That could result in one view seeming "normal" and "widely accepted" to people (and therefore editors) in one region and a different view seeming equally normal and equally accepted to people in another region. If this is the case, we would hopefully be able to find sources on that point and add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1265627614"