Pages

Monday, March 30, 2020

Is the coronavirus a bioweapon?

There's a conspiracy theory floating around that claims the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) was a bioweapon engineered by China.

I don't know how or when it started. Tom Cotton broached the theory back in January:

I would add: BSL-4 labs represent the highest level of containment for deadly pathogens. There are only about 50 BSL-4 labs in the world.

My thoughts:

1. Admittedly, I've entertained this theory too.

2. Also, other than those brainwashed by communist Chinese propaganda, no one would be surprised by the possibility that China could have experimented with bioweapons. Certainly the Chinese regime is amoral. Certainly they have the wherewithal to weaponize deadly pathogens.

3. That said, correlation isn't causation. Circumstantial evidence isn't a smoking gun. Just because the coronavirus originated in Wuhan with China's sole BSL-4 lab doesn't necessarily implicate it as a man-made bioweapon.

4. In addition, the coronavirus seems to be quite transmissible, but it's nowhere near (say) the measles.

Also, it seems to have a fatality rate higher than the seasonal flu, but its fatality rate seems quite unlikely to be near as high as the deadliest pathogens.

Plus, though the coronavirus can harm all ages, it primarily affects the elderly, which seems like an odd target for a bioweapon. Why not a more indiscriminate bioweapon that can target any and all? Or at least those of combat age?

In short, if the coronavirus was weaponized, then it seems to be something of a disappointment. It attacks with more of a whimper than a bang.

(Of course, we're still in the midst of the pandemic so it's hard to tell. Anything is possible. But I can only speak from what we know today.)

5. If a mad scientist wishes to create a bioweapon, then my understanding is it's better to take a template from a deadly disease and alter it to make it worse than to try to make a novel pathogen. Ebola, anthrax, smallpox, and/or the plague (Y. pestis) have all been choice candidates to be weaponized precisely because they're already deadly.

Granted, SARS-1 was fairly deadly, and our coronavirus is SARS-2, but at least according to this list SARs-1 isn't even in the top 25 of diseases with the highest fatality rates. In fact, if we wish to stay in the coronavirus family of viruses, then MERS had a higher case fatality rate.

6. At best, the coronavirus could have been a failed attempt to make a deadly bioweapon. Perhaps a bioweapon that was accidentally released before it was "ready". That seems more plausible to me than the successful bioweapon theory, but it still seems implausible overall.

Related, the coronavirus could have been a novel virus that the Chinese had discovered and extracted from an animal (e.g. bats), held under containment in their BSL-4 lab, but the virus inadvertently "escaped" through some error. That seems more plausible to me than either the failed or successful bioweapon theories.

7. More to the point, as most people know, scientists can look at a person's DNA to identify paternity as well as various criminals (e.g. murderers, rapists). Similarly scientists can look at the genetic material of viruses to identify its likely origins. And the fact is many scientists have already performed genomic analyses on the coronavirus. Here are the results:

It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7, 11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. (Source)

8. By contrast, again looking at the coronavirus' genome, there is are very compelling alternative theories for its origin:

Of course, scientists tell us that SARS-CoV-2 did not escape from a jar: RNA sequences closely resemble those of viruses that silently circulate in bats, and epidemiologic information implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets. (Source)

Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2. (Source)

Full-length genome sequences were obtained from five patients at an early stage of the outbreak. The sequences are almost identical and share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV. Furthermore, we show that 2019-nCoV is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus. (Source)

Complete genomes were submitted to GISAID. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that 2019-nCoV falls into the genus betacoronavirus, which includes coronaviruses (SARS-CoV, bat SARS-like CoV, and others) discovered in humans, bats, and other wild animals.15 (Source)

Last, while phylogenetic analysis indicates a bat origin of 2019-nCoV, 2019-nCoV also potentially recognizes ACE2 from a diversity of animal species (except mice and rats), implicating these animal species as possible intermediate hosts or animal models for 2019-nCoV infections. (Source)

From these results, the new 2019‐nCoV is distinct from SARS virus, probably trasmitted from bats after mutation conferring ability to infect humans. (Source)

The levels of genetic similarity between the 2019-nCoV and RaTG13 suggest that the latter does not provide the exact variant that caused the outbreak in humans, but the hypothesis that 2019-nCoV has originated from bats is very likely. (Source)

Five of these six residues are mutated in SARS-CoV-2 compared to its most closely related virus, RaTG13 sampled from a Rhinolophus affinis bat, to which it is ~96% identical2...As many of the early cases of COVID-19 were linked to the Huanan seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan, it is possible that an animal source was present at this location. Given the similarity of SARS-CoV-2 to bat SARS-like CoVs, particularly RaTG13, it is plausible that bats serve as reservoir hosts for SARS-CoV-2. It is important, however, to note that previous outbreaks of betacoronaviruses in humans involved direct exposure to animals other than bats, including civets (SARS) and camels (MERS), that carry viruses that are genetically very similar to SARS-CoV-1 or MERS-CoV, respectively. By analogy, viruses closely related to SARS-Cov-2 may be circulating in one or more animal species. (Source)

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. (Source)

11 comments:

  1. All societies should let the virus run its course to build a natural herd immunity. Isolate the sick and elderly, and others who are vulnerable (although 70 percent of Americans are pre-diabetic and don't know it). Let's go back to work to start the robust economy again.

    Flattening the curve will only keep this going. But that is exactly what the left wants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All societies should let the virus run its course to build a natural herd immunity."

      That could likely mean letting many people die though.

      "Isolate the sick and elderly, and others who are vulnerable (although 70 percent of Americans are pre-diabetic and don't know it).

      If that's the case, then that's a lot of people you'd be potentially endangering.

      "Let's go back to work to start the robust economy again."

      I agree.

      "Flattening the curve will only keep this going. But that is exactly what the left wants."

      Both liberals and conservatives are arguing for "flattening the curve". In fact, Trump himself argues for it and has taken steps toward "flattening the curve". This isn't to suggest I agree or disagree with these policies. Rather I'm simply responding to your implication that "flattening the curve" is something only the left wants.

      Delete
    2. You mention that 70 percent of Americans are pre-diabetic and don't know it. Would these persons not be vulnerable? (That's not rhetorical. I don't know.) And if a majority of Americans are vulnerable and don't know it, the tactic of isolating the vulnerable and letting others get back to work sounds like a recipe for disaster.

      This strategy might be more plausible for someplace like Montana or South Dakota. It seems less plausible in more densely populated areas like NYC. As a Floridian, I like DeSantis's strategy of letting cities decide how best to handle their respective cases. It makes no sense to make, say, Arcadia shutdown when most of the outbreak (right now) is Miami and Broward. (Maybe more should be done to restrict movement as much as possible between counties.) Of course, people are losing their minds over DeSantis leaving it up to cities.

      Delete
    3. "although 70 percent of Americans are pre-diabetic and don't know it"

      According to the American Diabetes Society: "Prediabetes: In 2015, 88 million Americans age 18 and older had prediabetes."

      According to the CDC: "An estimated 88 million adults aged 18 years or older had prediabetes in 2018."

      So that's approximately 40% of adult Americans (age 18 and over) who are prediabetic.

      If we include children, how does that get us to 70%? That seems highly improbable to me, but maybe you can make the mathematics work out. Not to mention children are more likely to have type 1 diabetes, not type 2 diabetes which is quite different, so you'd have to leave aside type 1 diabetes.

      No doubt 40% is high, but it's not 70%.

      Delete
  2. And don't take my word from it, take it from Dr. Jason Fung, one of the leading researchers on diabetes and hyperinsulinemia, who's clinic is reversing untold thousands of cases of diabetes. I have been following his research for years. This virus is truly exposing our carb-toxic society for what it is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU5bc3Fja34

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And don't take my word from it, take it from Dr. Jason Fung, one of the leading researchers on diabetes and hyperinsulinemia, who's clinic is reversing untold thousands of cases of diabetes. I have been following his research for years. This virus is truly exposing our carb-toxic society for what it is."

      I don't have a problem with Jason Fung, and in fact I appreciate a lot of what he says, but he's definitely not against vaccines. He argues for intermittent fasting, but he doesn't argue against vaccines like you do.

      Also, once again, you keep interjecting your moral crusade into posts that have nothing to do with vaccines or "natural" herd immunity. You're a fanatic about your anti-vaccination and pro-natural herd immunity cause. And various Triablogue members have already warned you about this several times, yet you persist in your crusade.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for addressing this. I think, in general, experts have adopted an attitude that we should ignore views outside the mainstream instead of refute them because refuting them would give them legitimacy. This makes little sense and more often presents itself as a position of weakness. (Although the narrative is so common now that I suppose someone on the fringes ming actually use that to now claim something like "since S said refuting x would give x legitimacy, now x must have some legitimacy once Sn offers a refutation."

    Regarding point 4, though, the conspiracy theorist could point to the fact that China has an aging population problem (https://time.com/5523805/china-aging-population-working-age/). Furthermore, the virus tends to kill more men than women and China also has a mate-less male problem (https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/28/my-parents-say-hurry-up-and-find-a-girl-chinas-millions-of-lonely-leftover-men).

    But releasing a virus to take care of these problems seems like the dumbest way an authoritarian regime might address these issues. Especially given the risk of being caught bioengineering something that then caused a pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John! Several good points. And in addition to what you said about "legitimacy", I suspect one reason some or many experts adopt this kind of attitude is simply because they're snobs. They regard the average person as intellectually beneath them. Like how scientists look at non-scientists like they're ignorant simply for not knowing science, even if the non-scientist is highly intelligent. As if scientific knowledge makes them part of some special guild. Something like that. Just my impression, but maybe I'm wrong.

      Delete
    2. I think the problem is more an issue of effort. It takes time and energy to do the research to properly refute a badly thought out position. One idiot throwing out bad ideas can keep 10 smarter people busy refuting them. At some point you have to draw a line and say that is just too stupid to deserve a response.

      The problem is that a broken clock is right twice a day. Sometimes those bad ideas have a lot of truth to them. No matter which way you bias the filter, some truth will get lost. Most people just err on the side of lazy.

      Delete
    3. Very good points, SomeRandomGuy!

      Delete
  4. SomeRandomGuy,

    I think that's right and I was going to try to write more about this elsewhere. My thought was slightly different in its angle though. The laziness issue in the sense you mention has some merit, but saying something is too stupid to respond to is not quite the same as saying that if one were to respond to it then it would confer legitimacy upon it. Our reasons for well established positions are often not as certain as we would like them to be (or as we present them to be to the general public).There is, perhaps, some fear at the general population's ability to rationally assess positions but also, in some cases, in having to admit that the established position has been stated to have (or treated as having) more certainty than it does.

    The interview with the pro-vaccine doctor on the Joe Rogan podcast that Hawk pointed to several weeks ago comes to mind. The doctor made qualified claims and often Joe Rogan would repeat the qualification giving the sentiment of "So there's a chance you're wrong" at which point, IIRC, the doctor felt compelled to restate it in stronger terms. For this sort of issue, even the too stupid response has its own set of problems: when the too stupid position has been found plausible by a not insignificant number of people. One's view of society must be very pessimistic and begin to lean against democracy or the hard work of exposing it as such must be done.

    ReplyDelete