Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Highlighted open discussions

Current page-specific consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

1. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. Discussion permalink

Discussion of 4th origin hypothesis

Continuing discussion here after revert by @Hemiauchenia:, regarding the following text from the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section, changes emphasized:

All available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin and is not genetically engineered. Nevertheless, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While some scientists, including David Relman and former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".

A few topics for discussion:

• Could you direct me to the prior consensus for this page? If prior to the latest report, would it be prudent to reconsider that consensus (as we did with COVID-19 when the WHO deprecated the coronavirus disease 2019 name)?
• My intent was not to suggest a plurality of adherants gives weight. I was instead taking WP:DUE as my guide: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I can appreciate that ability to name prominent adherents does not necessarily mean they must be listed by name in the article.
• I wanted to clarify if your primary concern was with the addition of Relman, or if you had concerns with the remainder of the above content (which is transcluded on other pages, namely Investigations into the origin of COVID-19). Per our other discussions, I expected you would have objected to the Redfield inclusion as well. So I wanted to either bring it to your attention if you missed it, or better understand your concern.

Appreciate your time. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

David Relman has no relevant expertise on coronaviruses, and therefore his opinion is undue. Redfield is probably due as he is actually a virologist and is former head of the CDC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that interpretation, thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In this link there is a list of the "best experts" that can speak on "the origins of COVID and trying to understand the science underlying a lab leak hypothesis: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1381261347736981508?s=20, according to Dr. Alina Chan, a Vector and Genetic Engineering Specialist that has written about the debate on social media and journals. Forich (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not trust anything coming from Alina Chan, who is just a postdoc (so, not an expert or authority on any topic) and moreover has been a prominent proponent of origin conspiracy theories. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay The list from Chan that Forich linked to can also be found in an editorial she co-authored with Matt Ridley for The Telegraph [1] with citations here [2]. Your spurious claim that Chan is a proponent of conspiracy theories is undue in this discussion. CutePeach (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That she has published the same list elsewhere doesn't make her more reliable. And her twitter feed more than establishes her pro-conspiracy stance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate your acussations on Chan I would agree on not considering her as a source for a list of experts. If you @JoelleJay: are not a top coronavirologist yourself, I suggest we ask in Wikiproject Virology both Chan's status and whether there are any top scientists we should use as the prominent voice of the minority position discussed.Forich (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well for one she is a post-doc with, apparently, 4 total papers (and only 2 in virology) so she is not an authority in virology whatsoever. For another, she has promoted the anti-natural-origin/lab-engineering conspiracies pushed by DRASTIC/Mr. Deigin (which is apparent by her uncritically citing the Segreto/Deigin BioEssays paper and Rahalkar's Frontiers in paper in her still-unpublished SARS-CoV-2 article). She is one of the more balanced and scientifically-literate natural-origin "skeptics", for sure, but her role is very clearly on the "Twitterverse speculation" side of things rather than the "backed by decades of highly-relevant research experience" side. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, point taken that she has not published extensively, but she is young, and I've read her recent paper on pangolin samples, and it looks like a very good piece of research. She is also good at communicating research in social media, in my opinion. I agree that some of the guys in that DRASTIC troupe seem unreliable, I hope she is not officialy part of them, I tend to read her tweets to stay informed on SARS-CoV-2. I will still ask in Wikiproject Virology, though. Forich (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I have to disagree with Hemiauchenia on this. David Relman is a Microbiologist and Microbiology is a superset of virology and coronavirology. He is especially due as he foretold of a crisis where a SARS coronavirus escapes from a lab to cause a pandemic [3] [4]. Coronavirologist Ralph Baric could also be due, as per [5], [6] and [7], but he hasn’t said much since that last interview.

I think Ebright is the most due, as he is leading on this issue from the front with open letters, while Relman and Lipsitch support more from the rear with commentary in the press. Ebright, Relman and Lipsitch were all founding members of The Cambridge Working Group and they have been advocating for increased regulation of gain of function research for years, due to the inevitability of occupational and laboratory acquired infections. CutePeach (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach:I appreciate the list and context of The Cambridge Working Group, very useful. Though I disagree that this make them more due. If anything, I think it would make them less reliable on the topic, since they're potentially more apt to be biased towards seeing the issue they've been advocating against? Which isn't to call their professional credentials into doubt, just a natural challenge for humans (if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail and all that). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I agree that scientists can be biased, but these scientists are not making biased statements. They state only that the theory should not be dismissed and advocate for a transparent and open investigation. I don’t think it's fair to characterize them as biased for advocating for an investigation into the lab leak hypothesis when the prevailing view is that it's "extremely unlikely". Relman declined to be interviewed on this by Fox News in order not to politicize the issue [8], Lipsitch took a lot of criticism for remaining silent for so long [9], and even Ebright, who is the most vocal, does not mention Wuhan Institute of Virology without pointing to the two other labs in the city as the possible sites of origin [10]. These scientists are concerned with the inherent bias that exists within the scientific community and they have always advocated for independent oversight from non scientists, such as bioethics experts. Their advocacy succeeded in pausing funding for certain kinds of GoFR in 2014 and their more recent calls pressured the WHO into widening the scope of its investigations into the origins of COVID-19. I think they are worth including. CutePeach (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I agree that scientists can be biased, but these scientists are not making biased statements. For clarity, I'm not suggesting these scientists are doing anything wrong. More the 'if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' kind of thing. Because of their important work, they may be more likely to lean towards this as the source. It doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they might be more prone to lean this direction. That they advocate for a transparent and open investigation is exactly what I want as well, and once that new investigation has results we'll cover what it says. Per [[WP:CRYSTALBALL}}: "Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

They state only that the theory should not be dismissed, which I agree with 100%, and have worked to make sure the articles do not do.

I also wanted to point out the Baric/Graham article (the only journal link above) had this to say the lab theory: In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Thanks for reading the Baric/Graham article. Let's not leave out the part that says Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable.. That quote can be paired with what said in his RAI interview: if you're asking about intent, or whether the virus existed beforehand, it would only be in the records of the Institute of Virology in Wuhan [11], and the more recent open letter which confirms his position [12]. Baric has more papers on coronaviruses published in top-tier journals than any other coronavirolagist, so his expert opinion is very much WP:DUE in this article and related articles. CutePeach (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So what change do you think should be made to the article? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I liked the original paragraph posted by Bakkster. An observation to consider is that the premise "some scientists, including David Relman and former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute" is not negated (not even weakly) by the follow up: "the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely ", because, statistically, having a likely event by expert opinion can coexist with having the same event be extremely unlikely by some other expert opinion. If we wish to illustrate the strength of authority of the experts, then we may like to put less emphasis on the arrived statement of likelihood, and more emphasis on the authority of the source. Or better yet, we could cite a MEDRS that explicitely summarizes the evidence that allowed the WHO to conclude that it was extremely unlikely, so that we are totally transparent. Forich (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To be more clear, according to a popular scale of likelihood statements (the one used for climate change by the IPCC) a likely statement belong to a range between 66%-90%, and an "extremely likely" statement correspond to a 1% - 5% chance. Divergence of opinions on the scale can not cancel each other unless one is based on better methods or has acces to better evidence. The current phrase puts a "While" conditional prefacing the likely claim followed by the extremely likely claim, which fails to comment on whether the original claim was weak, it only comments on there being several opinions. Forich (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncertain what you're suggesting, or at least how to accomplish it. I read the current wording (though it could be more clear) as intended to be While *minority opinion*, *majority opinion per MEDRS sources*. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me propose two versions that address the issue:

• Option 1: "While some individual voices from scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, sources officially representing International Health Organizations, such as the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely.
• Option 2: "While some scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, interpret some circumstantial coincidence as suggestion that it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely, based on insert evidence that supports WHO's conclusion here.

I prefer Option 2, but after reading the WHO report could not find the evidence that dismisses the lab leak hypothesis, perhaps you can help me find it. Forich (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Full arguments against from the WHO report:

Extended content

The closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 from bats and pangolin are evolutionarily distant from SARSCoV-2. There has been speculation regarding the presence of human ACE2 receptor binding and a furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, but both have been found in animal viruses as well, and elements of the furin-cleavage site are present in RmYN02 and the new Thailand bat SARSr-CoV. There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome. Regarding accidental culture, prior to December 2019, there is no evidence of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among people globally and the surveillance programme in place was limited regarding the number of samples processed and therefore the risk of accidental culturing SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory is extremely low. The three laboratories in Wuhan working with either CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all had high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months prior to December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening. The Wuhan CDC lab which moved on 2nd December 2019 reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move. They also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs or other bat viruses preceding the outbreak.

The difficulty here is the simplest arguments to summarize quickly are the ones based on a lack of relevant data, which is the primary critique of the report. Perhaps I'm just being overly cautious here, but I'd lean towards not trying to summarize. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the arguments cited in the report against 4th origin. The WHO mission reported that "There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019", which is the main argument, supplemented by their assesment of the lab security standards and the absence of sick staff around the time of the outbreak. I agree that it can be tricky to summarize these arguments. My best effort is this: "While some scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, speculate that it is 'likely' that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is 'extremely unlikely', because their examination of the labs revealed no virus before December 2019 that could have triggered the outbreak, and no signs of any of the concomitant circumstances that are known to accompany accidental leakages". Forich (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• There is a piece in the New York Times titled The C.D.C.’s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab.. If we're adding the opinions of the ex-director as somehow DUE, can we first establish if he's offered any evidence for his speculation, and second decide if we need to name each scientist rebutting this statement? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on keeping the mention as brief as possible (do not mention every pro lab leak guy), which leaves us with either: citing one prominent person (either Redford or Ebright), or perhaps citing the most recent open letter co-signed by Ebright, as it represents their collective position. Responding to ProcastinatingReader question, Redford did not disclose any new evidence, but we certainly can not dismiss him as unfamiliar with the circumstances of the pandemic. In fact, he is the one person we can be sure that was shown lots of data and pertinent questions about the pandemic origin in all the meetings he had during the early stages of the pandemic with the White House and the intelligence units. If you have evidence that Redford is not being honest with his assesment, it needs to be backed by RS. Forich (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

While Redfield is easily the more prominent, my read of his statement could essentially be boiled down to putting more weight on the open letter's conclusions, which makes it the more meaningful inclusion IMO. Redfield only makes sense for 'identifying prominent adherents' for proving it's a notable minority opinion per WP:DUE Bakkster Man (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I question why there's so much emphasis on one opinion v. the other—as opposed to being clear that it's really not known, and that there may not be an actual consensus at this point. In other words—why focus on which explanation has "more evidence" rather than remain a bit agnostic and clarify that no one at this point really knows? A new article reveals that a report by scientists at Lawrence Livermore undermines the "consensus" argument and our article's assertion that entertaining a possible laboratory origin is a "conspiracy theory":

"A classified study of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 conducted a year ago by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s premier biodefense research institution, concluded the novel coronavirus at the heart of the current pandemic may have originated in a laboratory in China… the U.S. intelligence community has not been able to discount either theory, nor have the medical or scientific communities produced any consensus as to which theory is correct.

There's also clear evidence that US intelligence agencies believe there is a real possibility the virus escaped from a lab:

"US intelligence agencies still do not know "exactly where, when or how Covid-19 virus was transmitted initially" in China but remain focused on two primary theories, that "it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals or it was a laboratory accident," the nation's top spy told Senate lawmakers on Wednesday."

This all seems worthy of inclusion, no? The information is newer than the NYT article claiming some sort of "consensus" by both scientists and intelligence agencies. As for the latter, the NYT quotes unnamed officials—as opposed to the DNI quoted by CNN. The above are more recent and are reliable secondary sources, which the WHO report is not. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sensible round-up of the current state of sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons why WP:MEDRS says to avoid news reports like those is because there is a long history of news media both making good-faith errors, but more importantly because they tend to create a false balance, making an issue out to be one expert says X vs another expert says Y. That's not generally how science is done. The ABCNews report that you link to is really an excellent (in a bad way) example of this problem. The editors and authors are fundamentally not qualified to assess the sources they are interviewing, and the end result is really worse than nothing at all. I'm not even sure whether intelligence agencies' evaluations are relevant or useful, except to the extent that they might be in a position to confirm a lab leak and have not done so. In the absence of direct intelligence evidence (and even then, consider that intelligence products usually omit their sources for obvious reasons), virologists and epidemiologists would be the people best positioned to determine the origin of the virus. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, for a more specific explanation for why WP:MEDRS frowns upon media sources like these, see the MEDRS section WP:MEDPOP Hyperion35 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Forich (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

David Baltimore

David Baltimore does not have an MD so it is doubtful that he would be an MD reliable source; however, he could perhaps be used as another proponent, like former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, that SARS-CoV-2 might have a lab origin. Baltimore states:[13]

“When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said.

It is David Baltimore, so I will allow the virology experts on this page to hash out what to make of the article and his quote. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that Baltimore classification is named after him, I think it's going to be a stretch to suggest he's not a notable and qualified individual. I think it's worth pointing out that MEDRS is about WP:BMI, which is broader than pure medicine, and as a biologist/virologist I'd say his credentials are applicable. Doesn't change my view that the theory is fringe, but I definitely think if we're going to mention one proponent Baltimore would be better than Redfield.

My one question is whether the Baltimore quote came from another source, or if he provided the quote directly to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, or if they sourced it elsewhere. If we link to a Baltimore quote, we should use the original source. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick (not really reliable) search suggests the quote comes only from that article. It was first published on medium and the note that it was added after first publication and involvement of Baltimore in the Bulletin suggests a direct provision of the quote (guess it was added later to medium too?). Personuser (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's my impression, which makes me somewhat hesitant. It's likely a WP:RS, but it's definitely one of the weirder ones. Here's hoping that this gets picked up by a more traditional source to remove that concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any biomedical claims need WP:MEDRS. Weirdo self-published crap, not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Whether Baltimore is an expert or not, this is a non-peer-reviewed primary claim. One expert looking at viral genome sequence does not constitute a MEDRS source, and it is impossible to claim that a statement about a viral genome is not biomedical. The ultimate problem is that you can find one expert, somewhere, who will advocate in favor of any fringe or even patently nonsense idea. There are a few biologists who have endorsed Biblical Creationism, for example. Another problem with sourcing a quote from a non-scientific media report is that these sorts of statements aren't qualitative or quantitative. To what extent is Baltimore certain that furine cleavage sites could not have evolved naturally? A real scientist would have to qualify that remark, especially given that the statement "X could not evolve naturally" is one of the most consistently disproven statements in biology.

  Remember, ideally we want peer-reciewed published reviews, or certsin types of reports from major medical organizations. Secondary, not primary. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

For Redfield we use the NY Times, which probably isn't a MEDRS either. He also stressed that this is nothing more than his opinion. The quote from Baltimore is even less strong, since it's about his first impression. I believe the sentence is worth keeping in some form, but doesn't need any more prominence than it already has. If we really need to make some names, using just Redfield seems the most apropriate soluton, but since we are reporting an opinion an contrapposing it to RSMEDs and general consensus this doesn't seem to require the same reliability as medical claims, rather more careful phrasing. Personuser (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not all that comfortable with the Redfield quote either. I can see an argument that his position probably means that we'll have to mention it, although I do have to say that I cannot imagine any circumstances where the director of my agency would publicly contradict a major report, especially to news media. Part of the problem here is that we have these non-qualified opinions from individuals vs heavily-reviewed secondary reports from groups that are full of qualified statements like "highly unlikely". To a non-expert, the certainty of quotes from experts like Redfield and Baltimore seem more powerful than uncertain statements from a group. To experts, it's the other way around. I mention this because I do understand why some people prefer Redfield and Baltimore, it's the whole "I know/trust this guy, and he's saying it straight, no weasel words". And I know that we'll need to be able to help other editors understand how to think like an expert. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• The existing wording was a prime example of WP:FALSEBALANCE ("Some think X, most think Y"). I have rewritten it and added additional sources to make clear where things stand outside of politics and Twitter echo-chambers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We're definitely getting into tricky territory here. On the one hand, we need to word it carefully not to give false balance. On the other, it's becoming impossible to ignore that this is a significant minority opinion which merits some level of WP:DUE inclusion. But we also can't go so far at to write it off entirely as conspiracy, misinformation, or politics (unless we can cite a WP:RS determining which basket all these prominent adherents fall into, particularly claims of partisan politics). It's extra tricky because the first way I'd think to address it (describe the rationales for the minority proponents, countered by why they're rejected by the mainstream) increases the word count and gets us back into false balance territory. But we need to figure something out, complete abolition outside the Misinformation article isn't going to fly any longer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's an opinion, perhaps, but it's an unpublished, unreviewed opinion, stated without any qualifiers. It's being reported only in the popular press. Bear in mind that it doesn't actually need to be written off at all, it doesn't need rebuttal, and it doesn't necessarily have to be "conspiracy, misinformation, or politics". The simple fact is that it's basically unverified speculation, sure it may be speculation by experts, but it's still speculation. Redfield and Baltimore don't need to have any sort of bad intentions to simply be wrong, to fall victim to various logical fallacies, especially in off-the-cuff first take opinions. What matters is that when larger groups of people examine this evidence, they determine that the ides of a lab leak is highly unlikely. We should concentrate on the published secondary sources and not unpublished (in the scientific sense) primary opinions and speculation. Hyperion35 (talk)

My thoughts come primarily from WP:DUE, that this opinion has enough prominent adherents to be worth discussing somewhere on the encyclopedia as a legitimate hypothesis. Certainly not on every page, and definitely with the proper context of the current consensus opinion, but it is DUE a mention. I completely agree, it's probably just a group of people who are used to looking for certain things getting spun up because they found something that can be explained with something that suits their specialty or whatever reason, just the human nature that sees patterns where there are none. But I can't shake that it remains notable that so many are seeing this pattern, and we can't just sweep it under the rug or qualify it all as misinformation or conspiracy (at least not yet). Which is why I'm struggling, the guidelines are at odds, it requires a careful balance between the two, and walking it while hardliners tug in each direction doesn't make for an easy answer. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My position is that it is unambiguously WP:FRINGE, and given what most sources tell us, we shouldn't present it as an accepted scientific hypothesis (because that is not how scientific sources describe it). That doesn't preclude us adding DUE statements about the generic topic of conspiracy theories about the origins, which are not limited to just the lab leak. How generic or how precise remains open to some discussion, so long we don't fall into the trap of false balance that I identified. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this continues to be our point of disagreement, that being FRINGE means it's not an acceptable scientific hypothesis. Not widely accepted, otherwise it would be the mainstream view, but I keep going back to the idea that the WHO wouldn't have evaluated a lab accident as their fourth hypothesis if it weren't a valid - but extremely unlikely - science (which is why they didn't consider "deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering"). And this is why I can't support treating all suggestions of accidental release as conspiracy, that would mean that the WHO published a study regarding a conspiracy theory. To put it another way, we have a MEDRS source stating that "a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses" is a legitimate scientific hypothesis (falsifiable, etc) and need to treat it as such.

I'd prefer if we kept the discussion to how much of a minority opinion it is, and thus how much weight is due on a given article. I don't think it should be much weight, or on more than one of our articles, but I can't agree with never once mentioning that serious scientists have legitimate reasons they believe this scenario that others believe is 'highly unlikely'. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So we need to determine how we judge what is DUE and what is UNDUE. Various papers either mention it in passing, sometimes obtusely ("Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence"), sometimes more directly ("Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities." or "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory."). Sometimes it isn't even mentioned (Hu et al. Nat Rev Microbiol, for example). And of course the popular press does mention it, but that shouldn't bear influence on the scientific aspect. The article currently has 2 sentences on it, which seems fine by me: "A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[103] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[104][105] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[103][88]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In general I agree, that our current wording is probably about the right amount of weight on this article. The following MEDRS paper from early this month was posted on the Investigations talk page, and might provide a much cleaner citation than Baltimore, Redfield, or other stated opinions.[14] Though it also prompts a rewording, as it's no longer appropriately described as "a few individuals without evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As was mentioned above on the talk page, that paper appears to have been published in an oncology journal. It is unclear as to why the authors chose to publish in an oncology journal, but it does raise some questions as ti whether the journal was able to perform proper peer review. And additionally, it is still a primary source. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I share your concerns on the author and chosen journal, similar to my concerns about the Baltimore quote published by the Atomic Scientists. Is it a primary source, though? I thought reviews attempting to sum up the state of research were generally considered secondary. It might be wrong, weak, or a number of other things that mean we don't use it, but it does appear to be secondary to me. Personally, I wouldn't want to use it for suggesting the hypothesis is any more likely than the WHO's conclusion, but for use as a descriptor of the reasons why the scientists who ascribe to the hypothesis would decide to do so, and even then we should replace it if a less problematic source can be found. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't seen it that way. If you can suggest a one sentence addition about said "reasons" it could maybe work, but again it's walking the fine line between DUE/UNDUE as far as the science is concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's a fine line. I'll take a pass at this page and see if there's anywhere that makes sense (the Neuropilin-1 + ACE2 + Furin genetics might be the only bit specifically notable to this page), but mostly I'd consider it for the brief description on the Origins page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This could possibly work for some of the arguments, but it's not even in a journal (only a page on the publisher's website) so I'm dubious about its suitability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Choosing a sentence

To move the editing along, let's have a straw poll. Which version of the sentence should be included in the article? Either:

Option 1. A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute. Or,

Option 2. A few individuals, including virologist and former Caltech president David Baltimore, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.

Preferences:

• Option 2 is my preference since like other editors have said David Baltimore is the most prominent virologist (given his Nobel prize, virus classification system, and extensive virology lab work) who supports the possibility of a lab origin. He is more prominent than Redfield. He is a good example that there are some individuals in the virology community who support the possible lab origin fringe viewpoint. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Could you add which citations you'd use for each? I feel like that's as much an element of the decision as anything. I'd also like to propose a slight tweak to the 'without evidence'. While it's true there's no direct evidence, the current wording could also give the impression they have no rationale behind their belief. Suggested rewordings: "...believe the genetic adaptations of the virus are most easily explained by study of the virus in culture at the Institute, though there is no evidence of this." Or: "...have claimed the genetic adaptations of the virus could have arisen through study of the virus ex vivo at the Institute, though there is no direct evidence of this." Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why not use "speculate" since it is shorter than "believe without evidence" Forich (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Without evidence" is a stronger and more accurate wording. Amongst other, the paper I cite in the section below (Frutos et al.) has, explicitly, "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure we don't give undesired implications with how we use the word 'evidence'. Is their statement truly without any evidence at all (even circumstantial), or just lacking direct evidence? Do we say the same about the cold/food chain which lacks direct evidence? There's no conclusive evidence or direct or intermediary spillover either. I think we can be clear about the weight given these minority/fringe hypotheses, without being overly definitive until we have that definitive conclusion. This is part of why I gave one wording with 'direct evidence'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to consider in order of strength of evidence: "speculate" -> "suspect" -> "believe" -> "suggest". You hit a nail in the head with your point about the circumstantial evidence: it is often disregarded as scientifically invalid, as in Andersen's tweets about the lab leak. In his view, you either have direct evidence or no evidence. I hope we can find a middle ground that reflects that circumstantial evidence is one tiny step better than no evidence. Forich (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No good evidence? No convincing evidence? No usable evidence? No definitive evidence? No valid evidence? No high-quality evidence? Not enough evidence? Just throwing words around.

After all, if I take a homeopathic remedy and I get better after that, that is a sort of evidence, but not one that would count in any scientific sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my point above was mostly that there's not "definitive evidence" for any of the four WHO-evaluated hypotheses, which is why it's such a topic of debate around here. The only thing the WHO stated conclusively was that the virus probably has an animal reservoir, but even then only seemed to say it was likely bats, hedging that it might just be because of increased bat CoV surveillance post-SARS. Evidence still missing that would be considered definitive include: the human index case, the last pre-human transmission viral strain, and a 'chain of custody' showing the path of transmission from point A in reservoir species to point B in the index case (infection via outdoor contact, food chain, or lab contamination).

What evidence is "convincing" and "enough" are the points of opinion on which the mainstream and fringe differ. How we explain this is really the question at hand. Mainstream interprets the evidence one way, a minority come to different conclusions. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given a choice of the two, I'd rather mention Redfield than Baltimore. Redfield's position at the CDC is really the only reason this is worth mentioning. If it were just Baltimore I'd think it would be ignorable, there's always at least one scientist who will go against scientific consensus, and Nobel laureates are often the ones doing that later in their careers, like Pauling or Margulies. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Didn't express myself on the question, but yeah, CDC position is what makes Redfield mentionable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• My preference is to not mention any individuals supporting the lab leak theory in this article; that material is better suited for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. (There are transclusions, so the content is unfortunately linked right now). If I had to pick one name, I would go with the CDC director. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thinking things over, I might also prefer Redfield, because he is the former CDC director, and the reader is more familiar with the word former director of CDC than either Baltimore or Redfield. The bigger question, which Forich and Bakkster Man raise, is all the qualifiers that are currently hanging around and on the sentence. Such as the sentence before about right-wing echo chambers, and the sentence having the qualifier "without evidence". What would be good if the two letters "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (March 2020) and "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" (May 2021) were used for the two opposing camps. Ironically, the papers are in the opposing journals Nature and Science. The Anderson paper is the majority position (although dated), since it's been cited a couple thousands times, but clearly the fringe lab possibility is represented by the more recent Science paper. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think with some careful wording, we can better separate the fringe scientific views of the Science letter (indicative of a larger community of adherents), from the literal conspiracy theories. The conspiracies are rightly identified as amplified by right-wing media for political purposes. We just need to phrase that in relation to the scientific views so it doesn't give the impression that the WHO-investigated hypothesis was the conspiracy theory. Perhaps moving the conspiracy line to the end of that paragraph? It moves us out of chronological, but makes the conceptual separation more clear, and reduces the weight we place on the conspiracies (we can just say the possibility has been ruled out). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is a science article, so the political content and controversy should be minimized or removed. The removal and rewording of the political coat racking (in the form of a sentence or two) from the article will greatly improve the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Now that we have the Nature open letter, is that a better source to use? Gets us away from naming anyone on the page (list of authors available in the citation), gets us a worthwhile journal citation instead of a MEDPOP one, and avoids the potential UNDUE implications of saying 'this important person believes this'. Their assertion is also less strong than the Baltimore/Redfield one, suggesting it deserves more thorough study, rather than that it's necessarily more likely than not. This might make for a more easily balanced sentence. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I support replacing Redfield with the Science letter (is it Science or Nature, I believe you refer to Science). The authors "call for further inquiry into origins of the coronavirus" which echoes previous calls from US and WHO, as User: RandomCanadian also suggests here. Forich (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support the substitution of Redfield with the Science article. The current paragraph is:

Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,[103] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[104] A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[105] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]

Proposed new paragraph:

Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including a small minority of virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are feasible hypotheses and should both be investigated.[15] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]

This form of the paragraph is neutral and limits the politics of the paragraph. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that the lab-leak origin being discussed as a 'feasible hypothesis' remains (in a way) an animal origin. As the WHO report makes clear, intentional engineering of the virus has been ruled out. So I think we need to be more clear on that.

I think we should step back and ask: 1) What do the citable sources say? 2) What do we think is worthwhile and DUE for this article? My take:

• Original reservoir from animals, likely bats.
• Precise origin and pathway uncertain, investigations continue.
• Origin is politically contentious.
• Mainstream considers laboratory-leak origin "extremely unlikely".

From there, it's what to do with the fringe. Do we even mention it here beyond the above points? Do we dismiss it entirely as politically motivated or not evidence-based (IMO, inaccurate), say they weight the available evidence differently (UNDUE weight potential here), or simply leave the rationale for another article? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I join Forich and Guest2625 in supporting Bakkster Man's proposal to replace the Redfield quote with the Science letter. I agree also to Bakkster Man's four point breakout of the Science letter, but I would add the author's concern that the two predominant theories were not given balanced consideration.Mysticriver1 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the 'deserves more consideration' is probably the right way to phrase the letter, and is probably language that most will agree is WP:DUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should mention it the way the letter says it.Mysticriver1 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, for reference that was "the two theories were not given balanced consideration". Bakkster Man (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.Mysticriver1 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A practical solution to the Undue issue can be this: allocate 1 sentence to lab leak, 1 sentence to frozen food, 2 paragraphs to intermediate jump, 3 paragraphs to direct zoonosis fron bats. The 1 sentence allocated to lab leak requires surgical writing prowess, though. Forich (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following new revised paragraph:

A. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including some virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are viable hypotheses and should both be investigated.[16] The lab origin hypothesis assumes the escape of an unpublished natural virus studied at a lab or a strain evolved further in a lab environment of imposed evolutionary pressure.[17][18][19] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]

This version of the paragraph adds an extra sentence on the lab thing which is about the right amount of material to include in this article on a non-majority hypothesis. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why remove the mentions about actual bollocks? I say one sentence for conspiracy theories in general (to note their existence) and one sentence about the lab leak (as a "possibility about which some have called for more investigation", sourced to the Science letter and newspaper reports of it; not with any of the NON-MEDRS sources [already discussed multiple times over] you present). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's another version of the paragraph:

B. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including some virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are viable hypotheses and should both be investigated.[20] There is no available evidence for the the lab origin hypothesis, which assumes the escape of an unpublished natural virus studied at a lab or a strain evolved further in a lab environment of imposed evolutionary pressure.[21][22][23] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]

This version includes the statement about the lack of available evidence. With this clause the sentence does have a better transition so perhaps is better. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's room to distinguish further? Nearly everyone agrees that further study is required. Whether phrased as finding the definitive origin or ruling out the theory, it's the broadest agreement we have. Should we split that from the minority opinion(s)? Specifically: 1) the lab hypothesis is more likely than others, contrary to the WHO's conclusion, or 2) existing investigations have been performed in an unacceptable manner. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins and actual science

I came upon Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. while looking for something else. After making an overview of existing hypotheses (they do mention "A parallel ‘digital pandemic’ (overcommunication on more or less probable ‘scientific hypothesis’) developed on social networks, bringing opinions and conspiracy theories, generating anxiety and irrational behavior."), the authors propose not a zoonotic spillover (as is the current consensus) but instead a "circulation model" where the virus did not suddenly jump but might have already been circulating for a while. It is a review from a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal. Does anybody know of other papers which mention this? I'd include it as is but due to the fact it is the only paper I have found so far that would make this a minority position so possibly UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Maurin, Max; Fenollar, Florence; Mediannikov, Oleg; Davoust, Bernard; Devaux, Christian; Raoult, Didier (17 April 2021). "Current Status of Putative Animal Sources of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Humans: Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Pets". Microorganisms. 9 (4). doi:10.3390/microorganisms9040868. ISSN 2076-2607.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Found this (citing the first paper), which does mention that "there are currently two models for viral emergence". While it does seem to support that the "circulation model" is not the "widely accepted" one, it's already another source which might justify some short bit of text. What you think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Interesting. I just finished reading the first paper but haven't read the second. This would be an excellent example of a minority scientific opinion. They acknowledge the existing consensus, and attempt to formulate what they believe is a better explanation using the same consensus observations. As a policy analyst, real minority scientific opinions also offer real policy options (although the "circulation model" policy suggestions are probably infeasible). The "spillover model" is still the scientific consensus for many good reasons, and it is a better explanation for previously observed zoonotic diseases like Ebola and HIV, which we know with certainty were not circulating in human populations prior to specific singular zoonotic events. Now, as a Wikipedia editor, I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. The mention of why the lab leak is improbable is useful. And a writeup of this hypothesis could be used as part of an explanation of what real minority scientific views look like. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• One quick note on the second study, which I haven't read yet, but the name Didier Raoult is familiar, and a quick search shows that he is familiar for all the wrong reasons. Apparently he was one of the most vocal proponents of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're correct, didn't do a check on the second paper: it is in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal from MDPI so it's probably not a very good citation for our purposes. They don't seem to be mentioning hydroxychloroquine, though, so that's a start. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One passage is neutral and and the other is a POV. Hard to reconcile these two, I dont see how this could be done without an RFC. But something needs to be proposed for an RFC to do that (RFC Brief, haha) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The POV claims from the first linked article have already been removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

In the introductory section, the second to last sentence is outdated and potentially spreads dangerous misinformation: "The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via respiratory droplets produced from coughs or sneezes."

The references cited here are from January and February 2020, and are out of date. We now know that SARS-COV-2 is spread primarily via aerosols, not the kinds of droplets produced by coughing or sneezing. See the updated CDC guidance from May 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html; and the updated WHO guidance: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted. At the very least, the sentence should be updated to be more inclusive of the ways that it spreads, something like:

"The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols produced when talking or breathing, and to a lesser extent from respiratory droplets generated from coughs or sneezes." 130.154.3.250 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've updated the text, although with some minor changes from the suggestion to improve accuracy and readability. It now reads The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols and respiratory droplets that are exhaled when talking, breathing, or otherwise exhaling, as well as those produced from coughs or sneezes. Thanks for catching that outdated info, by the way. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Science opinion letter

The current article strongly supports the zoonotic origin theory, relying on the WHO report to call the lab accident hypothesis "extremely unlikely." Today a new letter came out from 18 scientists published as a letter to the journal of Science calls this evaluation not a "balanced consideration" and that both zoonotic and lab leak remain viable: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/origins-covid-19-need-be-investigated-further-leading-scientists-say-2021-05-14/

Not mentioned in this article, but found elsewhere in places like the Wades article, are serious critiques that the WHO report was tainted by serious conflict of interest.

The article should be updated to reflect a more balanced take and not just rely on the WHO report to call the lab leak "extremely unlikely." When I look at the evidence currently, the lab leak explanation is becoming the more parsimonious explanation. Spudst3r (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a non-peer-reviewed letter from several scientists. It is nowhere near the same, jn terms of sourcing, as the WHO report. See MEDRS, please. Also, the letter does not even support a "lab leak" hypothesis, it simply asks for more investigation. But again, it is not peer-reviewed. It is the opinion of a couple of scientists, but they do not show ther work. As for potential COI, please make sure that you fully understand what constitutes COI. And in terms of what yiu see when you look at the evidence, see WP:OR. Also, please consider that if you are not an expert in the field, you should probably take a step back and take some time to familiarize yourself with the research and understand why the current scientific consensus for a wild zoonotic episode exists. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The opinion letter is a WP:PRIMARY piece for the opinion of its authors. They are, at the very best, a very small scientific minority (the other end of the scale is them being nothing more than a routine conspiracy theory grounded in geopolitics and blame-shifting). If you're not happy with the WHO report, we can cite about half a dozen other high-quality sources (some of which do cite the WHO report, showing it is an acceptable source) which say the same thing - see WP:NOLABLEAK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, not a useful source when we have decent WP:MEDRS ones. The fact that some people have tried an end run around the normal scientific process to do a letter if anything sets the seal on the very fringe-iness of it - similar "open letter" sources are available (and of course have been pushed here on en.wiki) for climate change denial, cryonics, etc. So in short, let's continue to follow the best sources and keep it simple! Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are several secondary sources, namely a NYT and Wall Street journal pieces and countless more. The inclusion is important because it provides more context and the debate in the field. Currently, the page makes it seem like no one supports the idea of a zoonotic origin followed by a lab spillover, but there is support for its validity. WP:FRINGE itself states that The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. No MEDRS source rules out this possibility or considered it impossible, and several authorities in the field consider it viable.

Currently, the article accept as gospel the word of the WHO, but a neutral point of view must include also those scientists who disagree or are skeptical of the WHO. The fact that there are such opinions in the field cannot be left out. Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's clear it's "supported" (odd concept) by conspiracy theorists and politically-motivated amateurs online, per the cited sources. As a possibility, it's "valid" in the sense it's possible but extremely unlikely. The sources say these things so Wikipedia does too. If you want to undercut the WHO, you need a decent source, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

But that is the issue. Currently, this Wikipedia page does not include any information on the Science letter or any of the other high-profile scientists who disagree with the WHO. Eccekevin (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If there are scholarly secondary sources showing this is due (i.e. that discuss "the letter"), then that may be possible. But if such sources are ignoring it and it's only getting traction in lay press - then no. There will always be rogue scientists. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Alina Chan really a prominent scientist? This article is not for a blow-by-blow account of leak claims and calls for investigation, that should be in Investigations into the origins of COVID-19. This is a brief summary paragraph that the lab leak claims are considered unlikely by the majority of scientists, including the letter is getting into the weeds. There are thousands of researchers who have worked on COVID-19, why do these 16 matter in particular? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case since "the letter" says "we agree with the WHO director-general", I'm not even sure how it's being seen as some kind of challenge to the prevailing opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They agree with the WHO insofar as both possibilities "are viable" and must be "taken seriously". The issue is that this is not reflected by the page. Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We say it's extremely unlikely per the best sources. Come back when/if similar weighty sources pick this letter up. Per the general sanctions for this topic (which you are now are of) we should not be using non-MEDRS/non-peer-reviewed scientific content. Meanwhile, I see there a discussion about whether it might be due in the Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you do so by using an article like this one, which is from a single scientist from Indonesia in Reviews in Medical Virology (a journal so unknown it does not even have a Wiki page) and a bunch of 2020 papers who are severely outdated, while a letter on Science (which is edited by the editors of Science which are no fools) by many famous scientists is completely disregarded. I don't argue against the fact that it is a minority viewpoint, but indeed it has to be treated as such, instead of treating it like a conspiracy theory as it is now, without even mentioning the support it has. You say on the page that most scientists dismiss it, but then you refuse to aknowledge those who support it. Eccekevin (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Saying pmid:33586302 is "from a single scientist from Indonesia" (why does the country matter, hmmm? Does it in some way nullify Hakim's virology expertise?[24]) rather swerves round the facts that:

1. This is a review article surveying the work of others rather than advancing novel research
2. Is peer-reviewed
3. Is from a virology journal, so is completely on-point
4. The journal, far, from being "obscure" is well-established with a solid impact factor
5. And is of course MEDLINE-indexed[25]

In short, one of our WP:BESTSOURCES. So implying this is a poor source seems like trying to warp reality to fit an agenda (rather in keeping with the whole lab leak thing). So long as we properly reflect golden sources like this, we are being good editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• That review article dedicates only one paragraph to the accidental lab leak, and does not really even address is properly. The only data is brings forth is this study (cited as 87) SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories that says it has a natural origin, but that is not being contested nor is in opposition with the accidental lab leak hypothesis. AS the Science letter says, it is perfectly possible to have a natural origin, been studied in a lab, and then been accidentally released from that lab. The review that you say is your "best source" talks about it and say that there have been accidental releases in the past but now there are stringent measures. That's it. It doesn't really provide anymore evidence against it, other than that the Chinese say that none of the lab workers have contracted the virus. This review surely isn't your best source, because if it is it is quite a poor one. Eccekevin (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I set out the reasons why it's a good source, the fact that it doesn't align with the POV a random Wikipedia editor wants to push doesn't figure in that evaluation. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're always free to take a stroll at WP:NOLABLEAK and look at the sources there. We don't criticise reliable sources, we report what they say. If the vast majority of MEDRS say "the lab leak is extremely unlikely" or "the virus almost certainly has a zoonotic origin", then that's what we write, without unduly legitimising FRINGE positions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that isn't the only source. Just a second strong MEDRS source on top of the WHO study. A study, it should be pointed out, said that continued investigations would be required, which the WHO DG agreed with and reinforced, and the the Science letter says they agree with him. But that doesn't change the current mainstream view. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem. I never questioned that it's the majority viewpoint. I question the deliberate exclusion of any other viewpoint. Scientific analysis of the genome of the virus can only determine a zoonotic origin, but cannot determine whether it jumped from bats to humans in the nature of because of a lab spillover. Your own BESTSOURCE says as much and concludes that However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Hence, this is more an investigation/political question than a scientific/genomic one. And given the many calls of skepticism for the past joint WHO-China investigation and the many scientistic speaking out (particularly in the Science letter but in many other places too), Wikiepdia should reflect the fact that many experts in the field consider both options viable and do not dismiss them as strongly as the current wording of the page suggests. Eccekevin (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And now we're back to the topic regarding how much discussion of the minority possibilities are WP:DUE for this article, versus how much is WP:DUE on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, including a sandboxed update attempting to better describe the fours hypotheses including this alternative. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the sandboxed update is excellent. Most importantly, I think it importantly lays out the distinction between the "Deliberate bioengineering of the virus" and "the possibility of a collected and studied virus inadvertently spilling out". This is a fundamental distinction since they are two completely different hypotheses (the former has no scientitic support and does not include a zoonotic origin, the latter has those scientists who consider it viable and does invlude a zoonotic origin). Eccekevin (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I get the distinction. But the problem remains that there isn't really any evidence for even that version of the "lab leak" hypothesis beyond "there is a laboratory in Wuhan". While the lab does research on bat coronaviruses, there is no evidence that they were studying SARS-COV-2. The initial outbreak was not centered on the laboratory. SARS-COV-2 has many differences from the SARS coronaviruses that were being studied. Even the lack of cooperation from China and their government's insistence on controlling information isn't actually evidence in favor of this hypothesis, because the PRC is governed by a single authoritarian political party with zero traditions of openness and transparency. The best that our sources can say is that more research is needed, and if you can find me a single medical paper, any medical paper, punlished any time in the past half-century, on any topic, that does not say "more research is needed", then I might grrant that phrase a level of valid consideration. Meanwhile the zoonotic spillover hypothesis basically says that SARS-COV-2 emerged in a manner similar to SARS-COV-1 and MERS. This explanation requires the fewest unsupported assumptions. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit less absolute on the level of evidence. I tend to see it less as a lack of evidence (broadly speaking, including 'reasons to look more closely'), and more as a lack of strong and reliable sourcing describing why one camp sees the virus genome as more likely to be a result of growth in culture. With the closest being the In Vivo review, not a virology journal but hypothetically explaining the circumstantial evidence these scientists coming to the alternate conclusion are basing that call on. And again, it doesn't change my read on the likelihood or fringe status of the lab hypothesis, just whether we claim there's "no evidence" or "circumstantial evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The lack of definitive evidence is somehow already covered by expressions like "extremely unlikely". Considerations about the genome are surely the most relevant to this article and aren't on the same plane as twitter conspiracy theories or probably inappropriate statements by prominent figures on the popular press, but require good sources. In the sandbox addressing every hypotesis helps to avoid giving too much stress on the lab leak, but it may be too lenghty for this article. On a side note: wouldn't it make more sense to transclude from Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 here, rather than the other way around? Personuser (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The sandbox is intended for the origin investigation article, I agree it wouldn't fit here. As for which direction we transclude, maybe but this article existed before that one, so probably just path dependency. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I want to add a bit more explanation to Alexbrn's excellent answer. This is one situation where Wikipedia's policies reflect how these questions are answered in the real world as well. While MEDRS and BESTSOURCES tell us what to do, I am concerned that some of the disagreement here may reflect a lack of understanding why we do it this way. To be clear, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the what matters in terms of what we put into the article, but I can also see how these standards might seem arbitrary to non-professionals, and so I want illustrate how healthcare professionals approach this. It's a bit long, so I'll make it collapsible to save space.

long explanation

A few years back, my agency decided to make some changes to regulations surrounding opioid (and other substances of abuse) treatment. Now, there is no lack of popular news coverage of the opioid epidemic, but we did not consult that. While it was of great public interest, it simply lacked serious depth, preferring to interview individuals rather than presenting any sort of serious statistical or cost-benefit analyses. What few interviews they had with professionals didn't require them to qualify or quantify their comments or show their work, and they rarely gave any information about whether a given professional's opinions represented a majority view or if they were a lone crank. Individual papers on opioids are a dime a dozen. They range all over the place in quality and findings. I even came across a (non-peer-reviewed) study that purported to show that laws expanding the distribution, possession, and use of naloxone correlated to an increase in opioid deaths (spoiler: it was horribly flawed). You could easily come up with dozens of different and mutually-exclusive proposals based on which individual primary-source paper that you could find. Suboxone? Buprenorphine-only? Methadone? Cold turkey? Do you want to play paper roulette with thousands of lives on the line? We instead looked at reviews published in the relevant journals in the field (ie secondary sources), and had our CMO look over them (which might make it a tertiary source), and this narrowed our approach dramatically, giving us a better idea of what treatment options would lead to the best outcomes, which were first line, second line, contraindications, etc. But that wasn't quite enough, because in a field this complicated you need a better idea of how to translate those findings into clinical practice, and so we consulted with the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM), and consulted with them about their treatment guidelines. They had an excellent scale to allow physicians to classify a patient's addiction level, and recommendations for treatment based on those levels (ie outpatient medication management, short inpatient treatment, intensive inpatient treatment, etc).

My point is that this decision tree is a good example of how MEDRS is based on real-world usage, and why experts generally prefer expert evidence-based guidelines from relevant organizations (such as the WHO report in this article) as the best source of information, and peer-reviewed secondary reviews from specialty journals (like the study Alexbrn mentions) as the next-best thing. When professionals like Alexbrn or myself are saying that some sources are better than others, and some sources are all but useless, it is not because we like or dislike what they are saying. We are not just playing around to put a specific spin on the article or to dismiss your views. It is because in the real world, when you are making serious decisions, this is how you evaluate the available evidence. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

An even more thorough explanation can be found here: WP:WHYMEDRS. And I want to add, regarding the opinion letter, that pretty much all scientific methodology, from double blinding to peer review, is designed to prevent the opinions of the scientists doing the studies from colouring their results. Opinions of scientists are not a source of truth, they are a source of bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

By requiring WP:MEDRS for evidence of the lab leak theory the prevailing wiki editors are using a sleight of hand. Whether the virus was leaked or not from the lab is an orthogonal question to the one of whether it has a zoonotic evolutionary origin. Promoters of the lab leak theory don't doubt the virus has a zoonotic origin, they just suggest that the intermediate host was humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute. The actual question of a lab leak is not even scientific in nature about the structure/biology of the virus itself, but an operational one. Spudst3r (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Two thoughts on this. First is that, in general, we do treat this orthogonal point of commonality that way. Almost everyone agrees, the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with an animal reservoir. The pathway from there to humans is debated, but not that it's zoonotic.

Second, I'm curious that you say The actual question of a lab leak is not even scientific in nature about the structure/biology of the virus itself, since lab theory proponents primarily point to structural elements of the virus as evidence that its evolution was due to growth in lab culture. And those kinds of claims (for instance, that ACE2 most likely came from culture) absolutely need MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree there, claims around the furin cleavage require MEDRS. But other areas of the circumstantial evidence, like the lab's weak BSL-2 lab security are certainly operational points. Wuhan's lack of proximity to the local bat population or evidence of local infection nearby, the lack of hospital surveillance logs for the virus before Nov 2019, the timelines for MERS/SARS finding intermediate hosts vs COVID, and not being able to find the virus after testing 80,000 animals are not complex biology/health claims that require MEDRS. They are investigatory facts of the present situation. As there is no smoking gun yet for either the lab leak or natural origin claim, the article should reflect the fact that the evidence supporting both hypothesis still remain circumstantial -- and let the reader decide by giving an appropriate discussion of the available evidence for the different hypothesis.Spudst3r (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Nearly there. It's not for us to analyse the evidence and decide what the article needs to say. We need to follow the best sources on the matter. Given that the origin of a human infection is a complex issue, I would agree that it's something best left to the experts who have spent their life studying the topic, and not the journalists. WP:RS seems to head in this direction to: whether you think MEDRS applies or not, that should still be the standard we use. See WP:SOURCETYPES: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." and WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." - whether the origin of the virus is a biomedical claim or not, it's still an academic topic. And the best sources, as documented at WP:NOLABLEAK, don't give equal validity to both theories. We can note the minimal dissent about this, without unduly legitimising it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

BSL-2 lab security sounds biomedical to me. Wuhan's lack of proximity to the local bat population or evidence of local infection nearby both are biomedical issues. lack of hospital surveillance logs for the virus This is literally a claim about a medical facility and medical records. the timelines for MERS/SARS finding intermediate hosts vs COVID You mean virology? not being able to find the virus after testing 80,000 animals I mean maybe you could count this as zoology, but seriously now how is viral testing not biomedical? the article should reflect the fact that the evidence supporting both hypothesis still remain circumstantial -- and let the reader decide by giving an appropriate discussion of the available evidence for the different hypothesis Except that's not what the sources say. The best sources that we have explicitly say that a lab leak is extremely unlikely, they are clear about a zoonotic spillover event. This is the same special pleading I'd expect to hear from Creationists, the same "teach the controversy" and "let people decide on their own" canards. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to broadly agreeing with the above comments that these items are more accurately described biomedical in nature (and even if not, scholarly secondary sources remain best to prioritize with information so contentious), I'd like to note that these suggestions seem to support putting WP:UNDUE weight on (as you said) circumstantial evidence. While I am in favor of making clear that advocates for the minority position (and it is a minority position) have rational reasons for believing it is a likely explanation, I don't think we should spend more time explaining these pieces of circumstantial evidence than the mainstream perspective. And if we do explain specific details, I'd suggest it go in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Investigations where some of these pieces of evidence are already discussed, instead of this page (again, being careful not to unbalance the text and be UNDUE). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Date format on section Virology, subsection Structural biology

Per WP: MOS:

Dates, years, and other chronological items should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject and likely to be useful to a reader

. This phrase

By 22 January 2020, a group in China working with the full virus genome and a group in the United States using reverse genetics methods independently and experimentally demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2

can be replaced with "By January 2020..." with no loss of specificity for the reader. The addition of the exact day (or hour) adds very little information. Perhaps it was informative at the time it was edited for the first time and events were developing fast but, now, more than a year later, having the date "22 January" for this non-chronological piece of information looks overkill to me and interrupts the flow of readability. Pinging @Hyperion35: who reverted this edit. Forich (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the quoted policy is for linking the date, as in "By 22 January 2020". Not necessarily for giving a vague or specific date absent a wikilink. More notably, your edit added 35 characters, rather than making the passage more brief.

This is just one of seven references to specific dates in January 2020 in the article, so I'd be interested in hearing if you have a specific reason you feel this single reference should be reworded or just generally why you think the article would be improved by trimming them. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a full look at that section of the manual of style makes it clear that this is only when linking to a date, as that section goes on to explicitly mention how to format a date properly. Given the time period covered, I'd think that being specific about the date adds information, given that we also specify December 1 as the date of the first confirmed infection. This was a period of time when what was known was changing by the day and week. It also seemed that giving a specific date was more encyclopedic than "soon after the virus was discovered". Hyperion35 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The other mentions of specific dates seem justified because they are written in a chronological fashion, with the tone of a news narrator that gives dates and explains the events. Mea culpa on the wrong reference to MOS, it is indeed valid for linking dates. I can see where you are coming from by supporting leaving the exact date. In this section, the tone is clearly not chronological, and it reads odd being in a very timeless section like "Structural biology". The analogy would be to have an entry on "Properties on cement", and stating that "Research made on 22 January 1850 found that mixing water and sand produces cement". The meat of the piece of information seems to be on the fact found, not on the date. If no other editor notices this part misplaced I guess it is not a big deal and we can leave it as it is. Forich (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

One last point: take a look at Influenza#Virology, no exact dates there, once the information is stable (many months after the virus properties are studied) it just seem too much to include exact dates. Forich (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably update that from 'many months' to 'many years'. I also think the more suitable reference for precedent is another specific pandemic viral strain, such as Pandemic H1N1/09 virus, where there are significantly more dates referenced. Most relevant, the specific dates of genetic sequencing milestones (the edit that prompted this discussion).

But I otherwise agree, eventually not every item needs a specific date. I don't think the issue with the first edit was so much removing any date ever, but with the edit being a longer-winded replacement for a succinct date, and the specific date being removed being a notable one. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting R0 estimates

The opening of the article currently lists an estimated base reproduction of around 3, but later sections of the article cite a much higher number. 135.180.132.137 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The source for the first number (2.39 to 3.44) is a meta-analysis citing the source for the second one (5.7), so if there isn't some other catch it should have precedence. Personuser (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation(s) for the lab-leak origin hypothesis (currently tagged ^{[citation needed]})

I don't have my 500 edits yet, so I'm here to suggest some citations to use at the ^{[citation needed]} around the laboratory-leak hypothesis.

I'm not here to debate the origins of the virus, just to try to improve the quality of a couple of sentences, so please bear with me without biting my head off. I think we can all agree that the article would be improved if the following sentence gets its citation:

A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.^{[citation needed]}

Now, this sentence is combining two different things: 1) claims by virologists that the virus likely leaked from the Institute, and 2) calls for further investigations into the matter. The former is indeed restricted to a minority of virologists; but the latter has been called for by the WHO Director-General (Tedros):

The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy." WHO Director-General, in comments on the WHO's March 2021 report.

Given this, the above-quoted sentence should be divided in two: 1) a small number of virologists have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, and 2) some, including the WHO Director-General, have called for more extensive investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak origin.

For (1), the few scientists who have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, I suggest the following citations:

• A primary source: the Nicholas Wade article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (May 5, 2021), which quotes former CDC director Robert Redfield and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis.
• Secondary source: the May 17 Washington Post editorial which cites the Nicholas Wade article, among others.

To be clear: I'm aware that this is not peer-reviewed science. I am aware that Nicholas Wade and Robert Redfield have had some unsavory views. But we're just looking for a citation about "some scientists supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis."

Now, for (2): some have called for further investigation into the laboratory leak possibility:

Primary sources of calls for further investigation:

• WHO Director-General being quite explicit in the above quote;
• an EU statement and a joint statement from 14 countries, including the US, UK, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, both expressing support for Tedros's concerns, though these do not explicitly mention the laboratory leak hypothesis.
• The Science letter [26]. (The objections I've read above are based on the idea that a "letter" is just an opinion of a few scientists, without peer review. That's not entirely accurate - the editors of Science considered it credible enough to publish it. I'm not here to debate the merit of the hypotheses, just to suggest citations for "calls for further investigation." I think a Letter in Science fits the bill.)

Secondary sources covering the above calls:

• the New York Times article based on the Science letter, with further context and statements from the scientists involved;
• an April 7 New York Times article which includes Tedros's comments about the WHO report; and
• the Washington Post's May 17 editorial supporting the "both theories remain viable and must be investigated" position of the Science letter.

Given all of the above, I propose the following replacement:

A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[citation needed] [...] the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[95][75]

to

A small number of scientists have supported a hypothesis that the virus escaped from the research laboratories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[[27] The WHO, in its March 2021 report, considers a laboratory origin "extremely unlikely", although the WHO Director-General expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of the assessment, and called for further investigation.

My apologies if this draft sounds too pro-lab-leak; I have attempted to simply write a version which tells the bare facts. You (the more experienced editors) are obviously welcome to edit as appropriate. SSSheridan (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that "expressed dissatisfactoon with the extent of the assessment" makes it sound as though he disagrees with the conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. It was my understanding that Tedros agrees with the conclusion that a leak was "extremely unlikely", he was simply calling for more investigation. As you say, it is important to distinguish beteeen those ideas. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added some of the suggested citations (minus the piece by Wade and the op-eds in the WaPo, since op-eds are rarely a useful source) since that was what I was looking for and couldn't be bothered to search yesterday. The suggestion about Tedros expressing "dissatisfaction with the assessment" is misleading, since what he seems to have been calling for is indeed more investigation, and that matches the other sources (some governments, ...). I think the current text gives sufficient weight to this idea, without giving it undue legitimacy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, looks better now. Two quibbles about the comments above:

• • Hyperion35: the Tedros comment did not, in fact, agree (nor explicitly disagree) with the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."
  • RandomCanadian: I don't disagree with the choice to exclude the WaPo editorial, but I would point out the distinction between an op-ed, written by one person and published as part of a diversity of opinions, vs an editorial, which is the consensus opinion of the paper's editorial board. This editorial would have had the Post's qualified science reporters involved.

I agree that my "dissatisfaction with the assessment" wording (while literally true) granted undue legitimacy. On the other hand, in my (hopefully well-considered) opinion, the current wording does not grant sufficient weight. The current wording says "a few individuals" but then, as a citation, cites Tedros. Furthermore, the current sentence positions the March 2021 report ("extremely unlikely") as a response to such calls for further investigation, whereas, in fact, Tedros's call for further investigation was in direct response to said March 2021 report.

I am not pro-lab-leak (and I have all my fingers crossed that the virus did not originate in a lab), but at the same time, the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. Apropos to this particular article, I can't see the current wording being a fair representation of our current state of certainty.

(I hope it is clear that the lab leak hypothesis does not mean deliberate bioweapon engineering, just a poorly considered experiment followed by an ordinary instance of imperfect sterile technique. Plausible? That's not for me to say, but the editors of Science did decide to run the letter written by non-fringe "scientists with relevant expertise.")

I would point to Derek Lowes's May 19 post, not as a citation for Wikipedia, but just as a responsible take on the topic given what we know. "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain."

The profile of those expressing "both hypotheses remain viable" has risen since a couple of months ago. The current wording does not reflect that change. I understand the total shitstorm that could result from irresponsible discussion of the possibility. However, that possibility has been published in Science and other outlets. Wikipedia should try to avoid being misleading, which I find the current wording to be. SSSheridan (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What does "The profile ... has risen" even mean? Sure, political agitprop (particularly in the USA) has increased and some scientists are making a fuss (as with minority positions in most science controversies) but in the best RS that has been no shift. Saying "both hypotheses remain viable" without any mention of likelihood as put forth by our best sources, would be economical with the truth of what those sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it's referring to the difference between last year's open letter denouncing any suggestion of the lab leak by scientists, and now when it's at least acknowledged as an unlikely possibility. But these pages have undergone a significant change in tone this year which reflects that, particularly with the WHO report evaluating an accidental lab release. We now mention it (with DUE weight), whereas in January it was not mentioned at all. So I disagree that The current wording does not reflect that change, unless SSSheridan can give a specific example. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the current Wikipedia wording says "a few individuals... called for further investigation...the March 2021 WHO report...stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely"." Whereas, the words that I've found on www.who.int say the exact opposite order: the March 2021 WHO report stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely," but the WHO Director-General said, in direct response to that report, "The team also... considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation."

I'm not here trying to create trouble, so please don't make me spell out how "a few individuals have called for further investigation... the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'" is not a fair representation of "the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'...the WHO Director-General said of that specific claim, 'I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough...this requires further investigation." I'm not trying to spread conspiracy theories. I don't want the lab leak hypothesis to be true. My problem is that the current wording just plain doesn't represent what has been said.

You allude to due/undue weight. To quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The viewpoint in question: further investigation is needed before ruling out laboratory leak. Prominent adherent: Tedros. I'm not taking things him of context. (Check the context, please, if you have doubts.) SSSheridan (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the Tedros statement, in context, makes him an adherent of the lab leak hypothesis. At least, that it's a likely explanation. The beginning context doesn't seem to suggest specific issues with this conclusion, only that (like all the conclusions) they can (and should) be strengthened with further info: I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report. I'd actually argue the opposite, that Tedros was being savvy in criticizing China's lack of openness for being unable to rule out this possibility. Or, to be more specific here, the Tedros comment doesn't change that the natural origin is considered the most likely explanation by the mainstream.

However, there are multiple other prominent adherents who were explicit in their support (both the Science letter and otherwise), so IMO we needn't reference Tedros on this as we have cleaner justification for this being a significant minority view worthy of mention. The 'prominent adherent' comment is specifically regarding this: To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. So we've already cleared that second bar, this is a view that early this year was not considered significant enough ('a tiny minority') to even mention on the article, and now it is. So it's a finer question of how we word it so as not to make it appear more prominent than it is. IMO we mostly do this well, by placing it as the contrarian opinion to the mainstream.

So to sum it up, the best sources continue to say that the lab leak is unlikely and should be phrased as such against the mainstream position that it's 'zoonosis in a natural setting'. The focus should be on how we phrase that contrarian view (ie. is "a few individuals" appropriate weight). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. So, there's two responses to this. One is that our own instincts don't matter, that we only report the sources, followed by an alphabet soup of Wikilawyering. This is probably the correct response, however to answer your actual question with a real response, public health is complicated, orders of magnitude more complicated than just prscticing medicine, which is also incredibly complicated. It is easy for intuition to lead you astray, especially in the absence of important underlying facts (this is why critical thinking alone is insufficient). I can see how some people look at this and wonder why the scientific community has been so insistent that a zoonotic event is the most likely origin, but this is because we have been predicting that this would happen, based on prior events and multiple lines of evidence, for decades. A lab leak, by contrast, really is an extraordinary claim as compared to a bat coronavirus jumping to humans in the wild, via an intermediate mammal, resulting in a deadly outbreak, for the third time in the past 20 years. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not instinct :) I've been reading the papers, and my point was to suggest that Karl Popper would have been saddened by the Conclusions sections I've been reading. I agree that I don't know the complexity of public health, or of medicine -- all I've done is what I, as a bioinformatician, am qualified to do: read the papers, read their Results sections, read their Conclusions sections. I repeat: galling. Of course I know all about overselling one's findings in the conclusion section, but I'm genuinely shocked and disheartened -- I really expected better with a pandemic ongoing. Obviously, this is all my interpretation and Original Research has no role in Wikipedia -- this is just a response from me to you Hyperion35, since you were kind enough to engage and provide, as you say, a "real response."

As for "extraordinary claim": I take it that you have (quite understandably) not read the latest on this -- I too had not, until the WaPo (whose science writers I respect) turned my eye onto it. But it seems I'm not making headway here by citing others (Tedros, Science, WaPo, NYT) who are concerned about this possibility. I suppose that the interpretation of their statements is dependent upon whether one considers the lab-leak hypothesis extraordinary or ordinary. So let me try to make a brief exposition here on why the idea isn't outlandish, or baseless hand-waving, but based on their published research proposals.

Take a look for yourself at the grant proposals in question:2018: "Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice." The key here is that they had predictive models of coronaviruses leaping to humans ("emergence potential"), and, as their next step, they wanted to test their hypothesis with experiment -- any scientist can relate to that. So they say they intended to use reverse genetics to experimentally test these predictions in humanized mice (mice with human respiratory cells). YIKES. Seriously -- Hyperion35, Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian -- if you're willing to give these quotes some minutes of thought, do please let me know if there's some reading of them other than "we would like to test our predictions about coronaviruses leaping to humans by actually creating such viruses," because I find this quite shocking. And the 2019 grant proposal: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential." (Infectious clone technology "enables manipulation of RNA viruses at the molecular level," i.e. editing their sequence.) Again: testing the hypothesis of spillover potential (to humans) via editing the sequence of the virus's S protein and then testing those viruses in vitro and in vivo. Again, with the glorious benefit of hindsight: holy cow, are you sure you want to do that??? I, like Tedros, would really like a peek at their lab notebooks to see how these experiments went.

If these experiments were conducted, what biosafety level were they done at? Here's the PI, Shi Zhengli, to Science: "The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories". She goes on to explain that their BSL-4 lab was not yet in use for their research. I know Wikipedia is not a place for emotion, but my god -- BSL-2?!?! Surely it's not a fringe opinion to say "I'd like to know, please, whether those coronavirus-spillover experiments were done in BSL-2 or BSL-3." There is not, as far as I can find, an answer to that question available. That's the sort of "further investigation" that has been called for everywhere from Science to WaPo/NYT to www.who.int.

I apologize if my tone is sounding increasingly shrill. It's because I feel I'm going about this the right way and not being heard. Of course I don't want to be here on the Talk page, arguing about the wording of grant proposals -- my opinion is irrelevant anyway! That's why I led with Tedros and Science and the rest, but clearly I'm interpreting their statements as much more relevant/serious/noteworthy than you are. I've come to a point where either:

• This article is misrepresenting the state of knowledge/opinion, or
• I'm one of the crazies.

I don't want this virus to have come out of a lab. I'd rather believe that I'm crazy than believe that. But so far, I'm just not seeing the evidence :D

Is the hypothesis of lab origin still an "extraordinary claim"? I come back to that word because it's relevant to the question of due/undue weight, and I just don't know how else I can make the point that this is no longer a fringe opinion. To recap:

• It is published fact that a lab in Wuhan pursued a project to engineer the S proteins of bat coronaviruses so they would infect humanized mice. (I simply cannot find any other way to read the proposals; again, please do tell me if you have one.)
• Did the project go ahead? The project was funded ca. $500k in 2018 and again in 2019, so, yes.
• What we don't know are the details: how far they got in the project, whether the specific methods they used would indeed produce viruses resembling SARS-CoV-2, etc. These are the questions driving the "calls for further investigation."
• Which biosafety level were these experiments conducted under? According to the PI, either BSL-2 or BSL-3, but not BSL-4. (To quote Wikipedia: "Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) is appropriate for work with agents that could easily be aerosol-transmitted within the laboratory and cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.") Well, was it BSL-2 or BSL-3? We don't know.

The above is the context which informed the following statements:

• The Letter published by Science: "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data."
• Derek Lowe, sciencemag.org: "I’m going to regret writing about this, but it’s not a topic to be ignored. Where did the current coronavirus come from?" "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain. People up and down the spectrum of opinion need to realize that this could still go in several different directions."
• The Washington Post Editorial Board: "The laboratory leak theory also deserves more careful scrutiny. This is not to stigmatize Asians or to bash China, nor to embrace the Trump administration’s use of the laboratory leak theory to divert attention from its failures. The reason to investigate is the persistence of unanswered questions about research being carried out at the Wuhan institute.... The research involved testing novel chimeric viruses with different spike proteins, like that on the pandemic coronavirus strain, using “humanized” mice, with cells modified to resemble human respiratory cells." "If the laboratory leak theory is wrong, China could easily clarify the situation by being more open and transparent. Instead, it acts as if there is something to hide."
• Tedros again: "The team also considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."

I'm not seeking to convince anyone about where the virus came from. I'm only seeking to convince you, fellow editors, that:

1. It is not a fringe opinion to say that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" [28], and
2. The current wording in this article is a clear dismissal of that opinion; it does not give it due weight. (The current wording:)

Extended content

"A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, with only circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[93][94] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[95][96] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[97][75]"

My proposal for the article remains: to represent that Tedros and the authors of the Science letter (which the Science editors chose to publish) -- not "a few individuals, with only circumstantial evidence" -- are taking the laboratory spillover hypothesis seriously, and that they have called -- seriously, not formulaically -- for further, unobstructed investigation. SSSheridan (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The grant proposal is a WP:PRIMARY source. Any interpretation of it (your questions, etc...) would be improper editorial synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. Yes, scientists conduct gain of function research. There's no evidence that SARS-Cov-2 is the result of such research, and MEDRS sources overwhelmingly reject the theory of an engineered virus. The comments by Tedros et al. are already covered to more detail at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization. Going to such details here would be off-topic, since this isn't about the investigations and controversies related thereto. The current wording correctly states that A) there are conspiracies related to the origin of COVID-19 B) there is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that COVID may have leaked from a lab [sources given at WP:NOLABLEAK say that there is no evidence for it, ergo, we say that too] C) some have called for further investigations and D) the existing research, including the WHO report, does not support this hypothesis. You might have a point that B) and C) could be more clearly separated (as two distinct, but somewhat related ideas), but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my reason for bringing in the primary sources. I began with the secondary sources, but we differed in how we read the same words. Perhaps I locked in too much on the "extraordinary claim" phrasing, but the purpose of quoting the primary sources was to contextualize the secondary sources, as being not merely that requisite minority of scientists who pop up to disagree with any consensus. I grant that that wasn't your criticism in the first place, RandomCanadian, so perhaps I didn't need to burden you with the name check.

To your point. I understand that a Letter is not an Article which is not a Review, and that Wikipedia has a far higher standard than that for definitive biomedical statements. But, WP:MEDRS says: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." I maintain my position that the current sentence does not fulfill this guideline. SSSheridan (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSheridan: I understand the frustration. It's a difficult (and, more importantly, politically frought) topic, and covering it in asynchronous online text conversation doesn't make it any easier. I definitely don't think you're crazy or a conspiracy theorist. I think there are two areas of this discussion that are helpful to separate.

1. How likely is the lab leak hypothesis?' I don't think it's right to dismiss concerns or impressions on the likelihood of the lab hypothesis, certainly not offhand. While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to, depending on how they weight the quality of the different sources of information. This is a big reason I've been trying to help get suitable content about the scientific theory onto the appropriate COVID-19 pages. At the start of this year, the consensus was that any discussion of it was purely as a conspiracy theory on the COVID-19 misinformation article. Between the WHO report and other scientists feeling comfortable to speak about it, that has resulted in the change. So that should give you some confidence that things are not set in stone, they just need to go about changing in the right way. Which brings me to...

2. What's the consensus on how we maintain the article? This is a pretty common stumbling block. The issue being, even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article. One of the most relevant is WP:V: Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. I suspect this may be the disconnect we're having in the above discussion. The more directly related policy is WP:FRINGE, regarding how we deal with non-mainstream topics. Particularly WP:FRINGELEVEL: Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future. At the moment the lab leak theory, as best we can source (WP:V), is the minority view. So for now, we take the view that the information we present must be framed relative to the mainstream view, and kept to a level that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE weight by being more wordy than the explanation of the mainstream. And, if and when we can verify that it's no longer the minority view, we will change how we write about it (just as we began to as the WHO report was published).

I hope that helps explain things, and I hope it encourages you to keep participating in improvement. I think it's quite likely that the current wording with "A few individuals" needs refinement to be both less dismissive and more accurately describe the breadth of opinions regarding 'more investigation needed'. I think we just need to all make sure we're talking the same language of writing for the encyclopedia and meeting policy, so there's one less stumbling block in the way. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:Cheers for the understanding reply. I basically agree with your later paragraphs, though I fear from your earlier paragraphs that I still came across as pushing the lab leak hypothesis.

1. While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to: I (and my inner Popper) am a bit embarrassed that I gave the impression of having "concluded" anything. I have no idea! And I'm not just saying "I have no idea" to try to sound moderate. My only opinion here is that the lab leak hypothesis is not whacky, is a significant minority opinion backed by non-fringe sources, and that the current wording still frames it as though it is a conspiracy theory of ill repute. ​
2. Even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article. But I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I realize that the name check, asking about the interpretation of primary sources, was misleading. I wrote the name check in a peak of self-doubt: the simplest explanation for the disparity between what I was reading and how it was being discussed here was, simply, that I was badly misunderstanding things. The name check was a genuine invitation to set me right.

But, above and below the primary sources, I hope I made clear that they were included to bring a fellow editor up to date on why lab leak is not an "extraordinary claim." I concede that the asynchronous nature of the conversation caught me here, and I may have hammered that point harder than needed.

The tl;dr of the primary-source invocation is to add context, to justify the Tedros quote as an actual expression of dissatisfaction, not a formulaic/routine call for "further investigation is needed," and to likewise counter the dismissal of the other secondary sources as the obligatory fringe of disagreeing scientists.

The sources do not, of course, support representing the lab leak hypothesis as a mainstream explanation. My argument -- newly armed with the WP:MEDSCI policy -- is that that it is a "significant minority opinion" as discussed in WP:MEDSCI, which says "such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." In line with your point about first establishing a common language: should we first settle whether WP:MEDSCI is the relevant policy for this topic? Perhaps we should agree on that, then I can relaunch the discussion with a more cleanly delineated proposal. (This section originated as just an offer of candidate citations.)SSSheridan (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what's driving me so hard, if not conviction, it's this: if the lab leak hypothesis is true --if the pandemic of the century was constructed by scientists -- then (among much else), there will be a severe crisis of public trust in science, which would (probably) be a Very Bad Thing. Think of the ammunition for the next century's worth of conspiracy theorists. SSSheridan (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: this comment was published prematurely; see below.

WP:RGW is not something to be tried; stick to the most reputable sources and Wikipedia(ns) will have clean hands, as we are meant only to be a reflection of published accepted knowledge. By the logic some editors are showing here they'd have been arguing during the MMR/Autism scare that since a lot of (reputable) newspapers were raising the alarm, maybe there was something in it. (And ironically, that is part of the reason why MEDRS evolved as it did.) Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, the above was published by the mobile interface prematurely. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

My purpose was this: despite repeatedly saying I don't favor the lab leak hypothesis, everyone's still assuming that's what I'm here for. And that probably makes sense as a heuristic, because most people who kick up a huge fuss are pushing a perspective.

I raised that hypothetical about the crisis of trust just to explain myself, explain why I've come storming into this Talk page with such wordiness despite claiming not to have a favored hypothesis. As I suggested above: depending on what turns out to be true, it would be either "nice" or "really important" for Wikipedia to get this one right -- by which I mean, to be encyclopedic, fair, to accurately reflect the state of knowledge. To follow WP:MEDRS.

WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDSCI has an explicit place for minority opinions. You say "stick to the most reputable sources," but a minority view will by definition be represented in the literature with lower prominence. So Wikipedia reflects that: it should not report minority opinions except, if appropriate, a short mention of the minority opinion and the debate.

I'm saying that in this article, the short mention of the minority opinion is NPOV and misrepresents the state of the literature. As an illustration: if you had only read this article's take on the debate, then you would be surprised to learn that the WHO Director-General had responded to the WHO report by saying it had insufficient evidence for a robust conclusion.

Again. My claim is that I'm not here because I believe the lab leak hypothesis, but because I believe this article treats it inaccurately. WP:MEDRS is the law of the land, I like it, and I want to bring this article into compliance. So let's just hammer out a consensus on how to do that? SSSheridan (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is that I'll start a new section/thread, and say "here's the current wording; I think that the representation of the minority opinion should be improved according to WP:MEDSCI; do you agree?", and if there is agreement, we can discuss further. Is that the right way to go about it? SSSheridan (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything based on the highest-quality sources is fine. But we mustn't WP:GEVAL to fringe ideas (cornanvirus lab leak), or extreme fringe conspiracy theories (bioengineered! weapon! etc!) Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSheridan: I think we're in pretty strong agreement, which is why I wanted to step back to help avoid any misunderstandings. I think the only remaining clarification from my side is regarding WP:FRINGE. The common misconception with FRINGE seems to be that it implies conspiracy or pseudoscience. However, the guideline is clear that it also includes "alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community", which is where I currently categorize the lab leak hypothesis. This is basically my one critique of the FRINGE policy, that there's no way to more clearly reference alternative theories, without an unintended implication that it's less valid than it is. With luck the WP:FRINGE/ALT redirect I just made will be accepted, so we can point to it more clearly without the pseudoscientific presumption.

But to be clear I agree, the section could use improved wording, and a fresh section would help. The guiding principles should be WP:MEDSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGELEVEL, which say roughly the same thing. The trick is just 1. agreeing on the appropriate weight/acceptance level among the scientific community 2. stating this clearly without over- or under-valuing. Both unfortunately easier said than done, but worth our effort to improve. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Please replace

The [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus has been estimated to be around 5.7.<ref name="high contagiousness" /> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 5.7 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.

with

A meta-analisis from november 2020 estimated the [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus to be between 2.39 and 3.44.<ref name="reproNumber"/> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 2.39 to 3.44 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.

and

<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>

with

<ref name="reproNumber">{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>

per Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Conflicting_R0_estimates. While it seems reasonable to point out how these estimates may change, the Transmission_of_COVID-19 article covers their history using the same refs and, while it's true that this number has been estimated to 5.7, using two different numbers in different parts of this article seems just confusing. The ref name is debatable and I couldn't check if the syntax really works. Personuser (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. To double check your code, you may want to try the sandbox. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Have you considered putting in a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? This would alleviate the need for each of these templates to be changed manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The template doesn't seem to be really that common [29] and the ideal substitute in a particular article may vary. I also wanted to note that the talk page template was changed to Hong Kong English. I can't really tell how appropriate was this choise, but the two matters should probably be considered together. Personuser (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser: I don't know what specific differences there are between various Commonwealth varieties and British English, but changing it to "British English" on all pages likely wouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either. The only thing I was able to quickly notice is the use of "center" instead of "centre", but probably only related to official names, which shouldn't be changed. This pretty much boils down to choosing a variant and letting grammar savy editors fix discrepancies, so if other editors don't have some strong opinion about it, British English should be ok. Personuser (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Shi Zhengli, biosafety at the WIV, and conspiracy

At Shi Zhengli, IPs and editors are inserting [30][31] the comment that Zhi Zhengli "admitted" that coronavirus research at the WIV had been conducted in BSL-2 labs during an interview with Science Magazine. The implication is that poor safety by Shi or the WIV may have caused the outbreak. This inserted text is taken from a new article [32] written in the The Washington Post that uses almost identical language:

In the interview, she admitted that some coronavirus research was conducted at biosafety level 2, not the more restrictive BSL-4.

However, if you go to the original Science Magazine interview [33] including the extended interview from which the Washington Post quotes [34], you can see that what Shi (and Science Magazine) say is quite different: far from "admitting" that the WIV uses BSL-2 labs, Shi explains why her group now uses BSL-4 labs for their work:

Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs--and indeed, you WIV didn't even have an operational BSL-4 until recently--why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?

A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.

After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.

After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.

I've tried to make this clear in this edit [35], but I want to make sure I'm getting this right. It seems that Shi's group used to use BSL-2 and BSL-3 like everyone else, but since the pandemic, as of July 31 at least, her group was now using BSL-4 for some coronavirus research because of new regulations drafted by the Chinese government, after the start of the pandemic. Am I reading this correctly? -Darouet (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that "admitted" is loaded language, and that she said "BSL-2 and BSL-3", so it's anyone's guess which research was done in which. It is the correct reading that they were only doing training in the BSL-4 lab before the pandemic. I'm inclined to agree with your reading that they've been doing monkey experiments in BSL-4 subsequently, but I'm not sure why it says "P4" there. SSSheridan (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a side-point, but my opinion is that it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories". There are "secret bioweapon research" theories, and then there are "well intentioned research had an oopsie," which I've been recently convinced is actually quite plausible. I don't support that hypothesis, per se -- I agree with Tedros and the Science letter that both origins remain open possibilities, and I agree with the other editors that the current state of the literature strongly favors zoonosis. Here's why I bring it up: 1) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, and 2) I think that labeling it as such unnecessarily antagonizes people with legitimate concerns. This pandemic has hurt a lot of people, so it's more than your average conspiracy junkie who's going to feel troubled about this. SSSheridan (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories"} ← and this is happening where? Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, this is an excellent example for why so many of us keep insisting that MEDPOP sources are a problem. The Washington Post article clearly screwed this up. The Science interview lacks sufficient specificity such that we have to guess as to what is being said. Do you see how this creates problems? In my reading, it sounds as though they used BSL 2 and 3 when dealing with either viruses or proteins that were not known to be capable of infecting humans. It is unclear from the interview whether they began using BSL 4 protocols before or after the pandemic began. When they first completed the BSL 4 upgrade, they used model viruses to practice BSL 4 protocols, viruses that would not normally require BSL 4.

  Also, it sounds from the article interview as though SARS-COV-2 still only requires BSL 3 even after the pandemic, which would imply that the lab has always had sufficient (BSL 3) protocols for handling this virus.

  But you see the problems here, right? Even this much requires us to interpret and synthesize from this interview, and that's not appropriate. This is exactly why some of us have repeatedly insisted on the MEDRS standard so that we can avoid these situations where we either quote from a newspaper source that clearly misrepresented an interview, or we try to interpret an ambiguous response to an interview question ourselves. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)