Talk:Origin of COVID-19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SacrificialPawn (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 26 September 2021 (→‎Transition of "WHO Convened/Joint Study" to "SAGO"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

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

Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Distance between wet market and the Chinese CDC

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

 Not done. You have linked to an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source. Do reliable sources discuss this? How often? Is it due inclusion? Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which help us stay neutral about the inclusion of indiscriminate facts like this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to google maps and check where is: 中国疾病预防控制中心 ( Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ) and where is 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market) https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Cambr5 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a primary source, your opinion of what is relevant. On wikipedia, we use secondary reliable sources to determine what is important and what is not important for our articles. See WP:DUE.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the rules to confirm: Google maps is the primary source + the previous article linked is a secondary source.
Anyway, there is also Wuhan Institute of Virology that is a 40 minute drive. Can this be added to the article? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111

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

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

Reliable Source Noticeboard thread on Segreto and Deigin (2020) in BioEssays

Please read the discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability for this topic, of the source:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue.Forich (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from COVID-19 misinformation § Virus origin hypotheses, or split to a new article

COVID-19 misinformation § Virus origin hypotheses seems to overlap with the content of this article. It has grown so large that it now qualifies for a split.​ It may make sense to merge it into this article or split it to a new article. What do you think?

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new article does have scope to be a stand-alone article. It would also help this article with size reduction.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case of a merge, would we have mother-daughter pages? If so, what is the proposed mother article? I am not very familiar with splits, is it on of those things where one can't edit a section because it comes automatically from another entry? Forich (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Forich: WP:CORRECTSPLIT has some guidance on how to do splits.
is it on of those things where one can't edit a section because it comes automatically from another entry Maybe you're referring to WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION. But when you split an article, you usually replace the content in the original article with Template:Main which generates text like Main article: Article name and a link to the new main article. This is a bit more intuitive to maintain when you're using the visual editor. For example, COVID-19 vaccine § Clinical research was recently split into its own article, while Ivermectin § COVID-19 is using section transclusion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lab Leak" Covid Origin Becomes Curioser?

Seems the "Lab Leak" origin of Covid may be a bit more supported, based on the release of a 2018 document[1] suggesting, according to a related news report,[2] that "SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t simply brought into a lab by scientists and then released by accident, but rather pieced together in deliberate fashion ... [but] ... a 'gain-of-function experiment gone wrong'".[1][2] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Dazak, Peter (24 March 2018). "Project Defuse: Defusing the Threat of Bat-Borne Coronaviruses" (PDF). EcoHealth Alliance. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  2. ^ a b Engber, Daniel; Federman, Adam (24 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier - A new leaked document is stirring up another frenzy over the pandemic's origins. What does it really tell us?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  • Key takeaways:
    1. The proposal in question was rejected (didn't happen)
    2. This is more evidence of a "toxic shroud of secrecy" than anything else
    3. Doesn't appear to have changed anything, i.e. "[does not] come close to changing the consensus view that the pandemic started from a natural source".
  • This could be most useful for adding details on point no. 2. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice a significant discussion already underway at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More viruses that are even closer to SARS-CoV-2 discovered in bats

Not yet peer-reviewed, so probably not ready for inclusion. But keep an eye on this, it will probably be a good thing to include at some point: [5]

Choice quotes:

Particularly concerning is that the new viruses contain receptor binding domains that are almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-2, and can therefore infect human cells. The receptor binding domain allows SARS-CoV-2 to attach to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of human cells to enter them.

“When SARS-CoV-2 was first sequenced, the receptor binding domain didn’t really look like anything we’d seen before,” says Edward Holmes, a virologist at the University of Sydney in Australia. This caused some people to speculate that the virus had been created in a laboratory. But the Laos coronaviruses confirm these parts of SARS-CoV-2 exist in nature, he says. “I am more convinced than ever that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin,” agrees Linfa Wang, a virologist at Duke–NUS Medical School in Singapore.

— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of "WHO Convened/Joint Study" to "SAGO"

Primary sources:

  1. "WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the Member State Information Session on Origins", World Health Organization, 16 July 2021
  2. "WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)", World Health Organization, 20 August 2021
  3. "Origins of SARS-CoV-2: window is closing for key scientific studies", Nature Magazine, 25 August 2021

Secondary sources on WHO DG announcing formation of SAGO:

  1. "WHO proposes new pandemic origins inquiry team and calls for transparency from China", The Daily Telegraph, 16 July 2021
  2. "With call for 'raw data' and lab audits, WHO chief pressures China on pandemic origin probe", Science Magazine, 17 July 2021

Secondary sources on WHO SAGO "Call for experts" and response from WHO Joint Study team members (in Nature Mag):

  1. "New WHO group aims to improve efforts to find pathogen origins", Science Magazine, 25 August 2021
  2. "The WHO is looking for experts to help investigate the origins of pathogens — including the coronavirus", Stat, 25 August 2021
  3. "Embattled WHO Virus Origins Team Says Window Closing For Probe", Bloomberg, 25 August 2021
  4. "'Window Is Rapidly Closing' to Gather Evidence on Virus's Origins, Scientists Say", Yahoo News, 26 August 2021
  5. "Covid-19 Origin Researchers Warn Time Is Running Out to Find Answers", Wall Street Journal, 25 August 2021
  6. "Political rows hamper Covid-19 origins hunt but more China research is a top priority, says senior WHO official", South China Morning Post, 28 August 2021
  7. "WHO Seeks to Revive Stalled Inquiry Into Origins of Covid-19 With New Team", Wall Street Journal, 26 September 2021

Key points:

  1. In a closed-door meeting with WHO members, the WHO DG announced the formation of a new permanent advisory body with broad remit to examine the emergence of pathogens, including COVID-19, proposing further studies on all origin scenarios, which would entail Wuhan laboratory audits.
  2. On 20 August 2021, the WHO issued a Call for experts, including biosafety and biosecurity experts, with an application deadline of 17 September 2021, and SCMP report that the body will hold its first meeting by end of September or the beginning of October. WSJ reports there will be hundreds of applicants, including several of the world’s most prominent virologists, including from China.
  3. According to Science Magazine, SAGO will take the reins of WHO’s effort to pinpoint the origins of COVID-19, incorporating the WHO Joint Study’s report and recommended studies. Van Kerkhove is quoted as giving its overarching framework and independent evaluation as reasons for the formation of SAGO.
  4. Bloomberg, SCMP, Yahoo News and the WSJ report that critics and embattled scientists from the first phase of the WHO’s Joint Study expressed concern, publishing an article in Nature saying that forming a new group runs the risk of adding several months of delay and that the inclusion of Wuhan laboratory audits in SAGO’s proposed studies risked further delays to collaborative work in China.
  5. However, as reported in SCMP and Yahoo News, on August 25 2021, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted SAGO will not delay the progress of the studies into the origins of Sars-CoV-2 as the initial WHO highlighted research that could be done without delay in China.
  6. SCMP and WSJ reports that China is actively carrying out the studies recommended in the WHO report, but the WHO in the dark or unsure of what studies and how they are being conducted. Van Kerkhove in SCMP: Ideally we would know what is ongoing but we don’t. WSJ says It isn’t clear if those studies will be made available to the new team.
  7. WSJ reports that the the WHO Joint Study team has been disbanded and that the new body can face resistance from China which argues that any new inquiry should focus on other countries, including the U.S and quotes Xi Jinping telling the U.N. General Assembly that “China will continue to support and engage in global science-based origins tracing and stands firmly opposed to political maneuvering in whatever form.” and Lawrence Gostin saying "The question is, will it be enough?” ... “China still holds all the cards, the WHO lacks power and it’s inconceivable to me that a new committee will be able to negotiate access to China…This is building a beautiful committee with nowhere to go.”

Further points:

  1. David Fidler remark in SCMP on the difficulty of depoliticisation.
  2. Koopmans concerns in Yahoo News on the overemphasis on lab leak and the need for access to blood specimens from late 2019.
  3. Van Kerkhove comments in Stat about not fingerpointing and blaming.

I hope this summary is accurate and that editors find it useful for updating the article.

SacrificialPawn (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_COVID-19&oldid=1046685426"