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)

Which pages use this template?

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

Zoonotic origin & lab-leak overlap

Hi User:RandomCanadian, the two main hypotheses put forward by reliable sources are (1) zoonotic transmission and (2) a lab-leak. But there is an overlap between these two categories. And the media have played up the risk of accidental transmission from live bats in the lab. We should acknowledge this and add that experts assess the risk as very low.--Pakbelang (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think we should, because what those experts say is that when compared with the odds of spillover happening in the wild (such as from any one of hundreds of thousands of people exposed to bats in rural China - see quotes from experts here) are higher by orders of magnitude to the likelihood of all stars aligning for someone working in a lab, where they're surely aware of the risks, being unknowingly infected, by an undetected virus in a sample they collected, which is somehow still present to a sufficient degree to infect the person. This, in addition to evidence pointing to an origin away from the lab in question (the fact cases were initially clustered in a market miles from it) and from Wuhan altogether (such as the genetic divergence of early cases).

In short, seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me (by the comparison of this idea with accepted scholarship). Yes, the media have played this up. We're an encyclopedia, so we can do better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. In which case I'm thinking we need some text to make it clear that that the zoonotic sub-section only refers to zoonotic transmission in the wild, i.e. zoonotic transmission that is unconnected with the lab. This is fairly clear when reading the article as a whole but it is not clear when reading the sub-section on its own.Pakbelang (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely should. A zoonotic transmission can lead to a lab-leak, they're not exclusionary of each other. It's a false dichotomy the page should be clear about it. It should be zoonotic transmission in the wild and lab-leak theory.Eccekevin (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Pakbelang, I don't think each subsection needs to have that clarity to perfection, or else if we applied that rule universally to every subsection (the so-called categorical imperative), then every single subsection would be extremely long and unwieldy. If it is clear from information beforehand in the article text, especially the overarching section, then we do not need to worry so much about the subsection.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's start by clarifying the pinned Current Consensus section of this and other talk pages, which currently says "The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin." Terjen (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, Those discussions (and sources) make very clear that "zoonotic origin" in that context means "zoonotic origin in the wild." Every single source, in some way, is comparing "zoonotic origin" to "lab leak" and determining that the former is more likely.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink & Terjen, The recent BMJ article is relevant to this discussion. The head of the WHO study is reported as saying: "“A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat cave—such a scenario belongs both as a lab leak hypothesis and as our first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek argued." This raises a contradiction in the WHO report, with the lab leak being assessed as both "extremely unlikely" and "likely"--Pakbelang (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction: a scientist being infected in the wild is not a "lab-leak" (although this doesn't say anything about later transmission beyond the first person infected). This seems to be confirmed by Embarek himself: "An employee (of a laboratory) infected in the field taking samples falls under one of the likely hypotheses. This is where the virus passes directly from bats to humans," [3]. "passes directly from bats to humans" -> direct zoonosis (the first of the scenarios considered by the WHO team, and one found to be "likely"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Pakbelang, The report said extremely unlikely, and this guy said likely. He is not making official statements from the WHO. It is not a contradiction. We describe both because both statements are notable. They do not cancel each other out.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok.Pakbelang (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Natural" vs "wild"

Pakbelang, is "a natural setting" not clear enough? Why not? What edge case are you concerned about? Transmission in a lab of any kind could not be considered "natural" in the traditional natural/synthetic dichotomy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, yes "a natural setting" in the lead is clear enough. Thinking about it again I see that adding "wild" here does not add anything. However, there is a need to change the sub-section heading to "... in the wild" or "Natural zoonotic transmission" (or some other such text). This is because zoonotic transmission can also occur in a laboratory setting and also when lab workers collect samples from the wild (both of which are presumably covered by the lab-leak section). --Pakbelang (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Pakbelang, Yes I agree that the section heading could benefit from the change. Will add it myself--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing more articles like this in the last week, pointing out the features of the virus that seem engineered. Should this be addressed in the article?[4] Here's the published paper. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner2020 (talk • contribs)

See Li-Meng Yan for a discussion on why her preprints are unreliable sources. Including peer review described as "debunking". Bakkster Man (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Worthy earlier studies - and more?

Seems a relevant delayed research study may have been recently uncovered. - ALSO - a related recent NYT news (08/24/2021) - AND - a very recent "U.S. Intelligence agencies" study (08/24/2021) - AND - recent NYT/Nature News (08/25/2021) re the "March 2021 W.H.O. Report", and being less able to discover newer crucial evidences, - AND - recent WaPo News (08/27/2021) re ruling out Covid made as a bioweapon - of possible interest - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Candidate species to be intermediate hosts and amphibians

One of the ways zoologists seem to be narrowing down the species candidates to be intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 is through analysis of susceptibility measured by variables such as degree of ACE2 homology and frequency of detected infections. One of the major papers in this line has been Banerjee, Mossman and Baker (2021), a paper published on Cell Host Microbe. Unfortunately, their list of viable candidates is very broad and thus we can not include the whole list of species, due to space limitations.

However, the Banerjee paper does produce a negative result with high degree of confidence: they practically discard amphibians as candidates to be intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2, because of their low ACE2 homology with humans and lack of documented cases of SARS-CoV-2 within them. I have previously tried to insert this information but someone reverted arguing that "This makes no sense: why are we suddenly talking about amphibians (frogs and the like!)? If we're going to discuss potential hosts, we should go about the most significant proposals, indicating if necessary whether these have been found unlikely by further analysis)".

My specific questions are:

1) Is it useful to mention a discarded alternative as a notable result of the investigations into the origin? Amphibians are a whole taxonomic Class, so it is not a minor result. Snakes (suborder Serpentes) and Birds (Class Aves) are next in the list of groups with low probability of being the intermediate host, so research in the direction of discarding taxonomical groups is a valid line of research that adds value to current knowledge.

2) Is it Original Research or Synthesis to put this result along the text describing results on intermediate hosts when there is no MEDRS making the explicit association? Forich (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking a step back, is the Banerjee paper a primary or a secondary source? If it's primary, then we wait for a secondary review article to address it and determine the level of weight to give. To do otherwise would be to combine two things we're not supposed to do: interpret research for ourselves, and use primary sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Forich, I think the way we avoid this being SYNTH is waiting for a review article to say it instead of us. They need to be the ones to determine the significance and relevance to the origins question. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloom's preprint has been published

Jesse D. Bloom's preprint has been accepted and published online: Bloom, Jesse D. (16 August 2021). "Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic". Molecular Biology and Evolution: msab246. doi:10.1093/molbev/msab246. PMID 34398234.. Note that the manuscript has been revised since its initial posting to BioRxiv and subsequent peer review, as described in the Acknowledgements. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, we can now stop using the no-pre print rule on its results.Forich (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Forich, Yes, although we should still be cautious to interpret/contextualize its findings in the way secondary sources discuss the findings, as it is still a primary source.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: the preprint is already cited once, as are several articles discussing Bloom's findings in the section "Independent investigations", e.g. Nature, WaPo, Business Insider. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to discuss the "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins

On August 27th, 2021, The Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins."

In this report, it is stated that it is not believed that COVID-19 could be a bioweapon. However, members of the intelligence community are split on whether the origins of COVID-19 were of natural origins or from a lab leak. It is stated that some analysts favour the lab leak hypothesis, others favour the natural hypothesis and some think both are equally likely. The intelligence community has decided that it is impossible to make a decision on which is correct without further cooperation from China or new information on the earliest COVID-19 cases. However, China's lack of cooperation indicates to the intelligence community that the Chinese government is uncertain about the results of a potential investigation.

This seems very significant. I'd recommend that the people who can edit this page, look into this new report and add information from it to the article as necessary. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nathanzachary56, This is the greatest "nothingburger" to end all "nothingburgers." As far as I can tell, from reading the summary, the most accurate interpretation of these findings is shrug. Your summary, however, is innacurate in one way. It's four intelligence community representatives on the committee who assess it likely came from a natural origin, versus one who says it likely came from a laboratory leak. That's a pretty significant ratio to leave out.

What specific text do you suggest that we insert into this article, and where do you suggest that we insert it? Do you have any secondary sources to back up that interpretation/summary?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what WaPo had to say. [6] The Director's statement quoted in whole is particularly notable about the political pressure, “These actions reflect in part China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead, as well as its frustration that the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China,”.

Two other items I think are important: they didn't think China "had foreknowledge" of the virus before the outbreak, and everything in the report was coupled with a confidence. I haven't seen anything with high levels of certainty, and we should make sure not to misrepresent the level of certainty. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not important whether or not an editor believes these were a "nothingburger". They were investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and they have received significant coverage. We should therefore include them. We should include their major conclusions. In particular, Chinese authorities did not have foreknowledge, they don't think it was a bioweapon, and both LL and Zoonosis are plausible. The LL/Zoonosis split should be summarized somehow. It's an editorial judgment, but I would suggest not going into how many agencies thought this and that. It looks like a fair overall summary to say that they all agreed that both are plausible, and Zoonosis had slightly more support. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, It doesn't matter what you think we should include, it matters what RSes think we should include. That is the essence of WP:DUE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I’m seeing overwhelming coverage on this today [7][8][9][10][11] and expect we will see more, we will have to include it per wp:due at some point in the future. I understand that emotions are running high on this issue but I hope we’re more mature than screaming “nothingburger!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think you might be confused about what I said. I didn't say we shouldn't cover it. Apologies if my "nothingburger" comment was misleading in that respect. I think we should. It's clearly very important to the story of the lab leak controversy and our readers will want us to cover it, because of how DUE the report itself is. The question is how we cover it. And that is the question these RSes answer for us. Not our own opinions about what is "important" in the report.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right, that was misleading. It led me to believe that your objection was much more strenuous and comprehensive than it actually is. My apologies as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I added a few sentences attempting to summarize, and linked it to the original call for the report. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is oppotunity for improvemente here. We say The report also concluded that the virus was most likely not genetically engineered, while the source (the news report from Sciencemag) says The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is “divided on the most likely origin” of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are “plausible.”. I suggest "The IC report's takeaway is that it is dividied on the most likely origin of the pandemic and that both hypothesis are plausible" (pretty much verbatim), because our current text misses the point of divisiveness that the source says it "the first and most important takeaway". Forich (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"with the main point being that the report remained inconclusive as to the origin of the virus, with intelligence agencies divided on the question" seems like a better attempt, as we should avoid verbatim quoting as much as possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally disagree. At the COVID-19 lab leak theory article, we give our readers exactly what other secondary RSes have said about the report [12][13][14][15], namely that four IC elements said it was most likely a zoonotic origin, and that one element said it was likely a lab leak. The other three involved elements did not come to a conclusion. I think the sentence RC and Forich are proposing is fine as a summary, but I think we still need to go into a level of detail regarding the individual agency teams as well. That level of nuance is really important for our readers, as the american people have been waiting months for this report. To summarize it so carelessly (and per one source, to the deflection of the other sources cited) is not appropriate imo. I think this is just as much DUE here as it is over at that other article.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the exact count is warranted; especially when it's just unspecified intelligence agencies. The point that needs to be got across to the readers is that the US intelligence community has not come to a definitive conclusion. The rest are details which won't appear all that important once the events are further behind us. i.e. our job as encyclopedia writers is to summarise and give the more important details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, WP:DUE is an evolving phenomenon. meta:Eventualism tells us that we should respect WP:RECENTISM, of course, but that it can only truly be done with the actual passage of time. If you are right, then news articles in a few weeks or a month will not discuss the numbers. If I'm right, it will still be mentioned. This is the most important actual development in this story since the WHO investigation! It merits more than a sentence. Even if it is a "nothingburger."— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's another lack of definitive conclusions, it is another of the few sources we have putting some level of certainty to their investigations. I'd say it's probably the most notable item to mention in the Biden Admin section, and if the concern is about UNDUE weight I'd look to trim the comments by non-senior administration individuals instead of the published intelligence community report. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Distance between wet market and the Chinese CDC

This information was publicized at the beginning of the pandemic, but there seem to be some accounts that try very hard to delete it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996 Perhaps it is a coincidence that the wet market was close to a research center, perhaps it seems to be circumstantial evidence for a leak theory. But perhaps let the readers decide? Cambr5 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. You have linked to an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source. Do reliable sources discuss this? How often? Is it due inclusion? Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which help us stay neutral about the inclusion of indiscriminate facts like this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You can go to google maps and check where is: 中国疾病预防控制中心 ( Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ) and where is 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market) https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Cambr5 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a primary source, your opinion of what is relevant. On wikipedia, we use secondary reliable sources to determine what is important and what is not important for our articles. See WP:DUE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the rules to confirm: Google maps is the primary source + the previous article linked is a secondary source.

Anyway, there is also Wuhan Institute of Virology that is a 40 minute drive. Can this be added to the article? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111

Cambr5 (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The opinion piece from the Washington Post is not a suitable secondary source. See WP:RS. The BBC article is suitable, but does not establish that the material is WP:DUE. We already have this sentence: The proximity of the laboratory to the Huanan seafood market has led some to speculate there may be a link between the two. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)