I actually believe this to be the case. From what I have read researchers often do something called gain of function research. In this research they add genetic features to viruses that could make it more infective. This is done, at least in part, to help learn how to protect society from such a virus if it were to evolve naturally. I thought I heard somewhere that one of the functions coronavirus has that its closest known relatives do not have just happens to be something that virologists frequently add.

All this leads me to believe it was created in a lab. Likely for altruistic purposes but still. When this escaped whoever knew that it was from a lab should have disclosed it ASAP to help the world prepare.

I have no experience in virology so don't trust me.

The thing I just don't understand is why gain research would take the effort of making the virus much less deadly. This virus is around ten times less deadly that SARS, wouldn't gain research at least maintain virulence?

You switch from death rate or R0, so it's not clear which variable you are referring to. COVID-19 may be less deadly, but it has killed more people than SARS. So it does appear to be a 'better' virus.

One way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change decreases property X.

Another way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change indeed increases property X, while also discovering it decreases property Y.

While attempting to increase both X and Y, they made an intermediate with increased X and decreased Y. Perhaps it seemed a promising starting point to also increase Y.

I don't get the surprise. This is all par for the course in research.

Depends, what if you had a virus that caused the same antiviral response as SARS on the immune system but had no deaths (couldn't cause death)?

I do not have experience in virology either but what you heard is correct. Researchers do work on creating new strains of viruses, with the goal being development of vaccines before epidemics start.

> they were studying it in China because it was a local virus that they were worried might one day infect humans. Maybe they were studying which changes would make it most dangerous because they wanted to be ready if those changes happened naturally.

The person you're responding to didn't say anything different to what you've said.

> Honest hard work can sometimes look like evil plans, and not every coincidence is the result of conspiracy.

Why did you say that? It certainly isn't stated or even implied by the person you're replying to.

The person he/she/they is responding to may not have originated the thought, but the quote this poster is responding to is very clear from context. It reads as follows:

“The authors feel that, in light of this preponderance of circumstantial evidence, the hypothesis that the biogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 involved human intervention should be seen as the leading (i.e. most likely) explanation.”

Which is not an accusation of research done in bad faith. The linked paper referenced 4 others as evidence. It doesn't say that those 4 were somehow done for evil - just that they were done.

Even taking the worst possible view of the Chinese government, they have strong economic reasons to have been preparing for a new SARS type epidemic over the past twenty years. They don't need the benefit of the doubt.

One could also easily argue that the CCP has very little to gain from ruining almost all of their customers financially.

So far, it also looks like mainland China was hit hard, while Taiwan got off easy. The CCP would most likely not strengthen a territory that they hope to eventually absorb.

And lastly, I would assume that with Trump, the CCP could just bribe their way into Washington.

So I see very little for them to be gained from starting this. And you yourself also conclude that India is benefiting more than China.

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, an avoidable epidemic of prisoners with COVID-19, and military occupation of free countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or more historically in Iraq (again), Somalia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Cuba, I feel like I’m just naming random countries at this point...the benefit of the doubt about anything?

Comments like this really derail an otherwise civil and interesting discussion.

Syria is a free country? Have you been there?

Because China didn't kill George Floyd in daylight?

C'mon Hong Kong belongs to China and always was. It was just leased to UK and this lease had ended in last century. China just wanted to reap benefits of Being Kong economy this is why they given them such a huge autonomy . They can change it anytime as this is their property. If someone would follow your logic Hawai is also US occupied country ...

So I'm not going to get into an argument, just make three basic points to reply here:

Hong Kong did not always belong to China, and was not leased to the UK - part of Hong Kong's area (the New Territories) was leased, but Kowloon and Hong Kong island were ceded in perpetuity.

China signed an international treaty with the UK regarding the handover of Hong Kong, a treaty which comes with certain rights and responsibilities. Sure, there's no real way to actually enforce such a treaty, but you can't really complain if other countries react to the breaking of a treaty with punitive measures, and don't trust the treaty-breaker not to break other treaties in future.

How about asking the people of Hong Kong what they want? There's about 7.5 million of us here, with a fairly unique history and culture, so maybe just being subsumed into another country wouldn't be the choice of the population?

Hawaii was taken from its native peoples and there is a very slow process underway to remediate that. [0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_recognit...

This is not the scientific method you are applying but a hopeful emotional reaction.

Yeah sure the racist hypothesis of Chinese people eating bats is far more likely than a virus escape from a Wuhan lab with known protocol defects that worked on coronaviruses. /s

Are you saying bats weren't sold/used as food in Wuhan?

What's racist about suggesting someone eats bats? Mammalian flesh is a common food source across human cultures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_as_food

Bats are not really eaten as food in China. Maybe eaten as part of traditional medicines or rarely in specific rural areas but that's about it.

The videos of people eating bats that surfaced following the beginning of Covid-19 were from Indonesia.

The way this misinformation has spread is indeed based on racism (Chinese are 'barbarians' who have 'barbarian' eating habits and they should change them and eat like 'normal' people).

Now, (fruit) bats eaten as food in West Africa is a major vector of the spread of Ebola.

> Now, (fruit) bats eaten as food in West Africa is a major vector of the spread of Ebola.

And maybe one day we can conclusively say bats play no roles whatsoever in the spread of Covid-19, like we are able to say confidently about bats and Ebola. We aren't at that point yet, dismissing bats as a factor is a disservice to science.

Discussing whether bats play a role as vector or reservoir of the virus is not the same as making thinly-veiled racist comments on a culture or as spreading misinformation on a culture.

Would you rather that we don't discuss bats in this specific thread? Because all that mentioned so far is that bats are(were) sold at Wuhan market as food, and that they may have a role in spreading the virus. Both of that is true. Nothing that implies Chinese people are "barbarians" or they should eat like "normal people".

Bringing racism up where it doesn't exist discourages, or at worst suppresses, a healthy discussion.

A healthy discussion starts by acknowledging bias, racism, and misinformation. All of which have been widespread on this issue (Covid-19).

Now, this thread goes further by continuing to relay the conspiracy theory that the virus is man-made, not least when the paper concludes by claiming that the burden of proof is reversed and that it is the natural origin of the virus that must be proven.

It’s not racist to say Chinese eat bats. That’s simply a fact. If it helped this virus, that’s another debate.