Yeah, it felt like a blackout which is nuts, right? It's like we didn't learn a think from the Iraq/WMD crisis where groupthink and herding got most of the media going down the wrong path, despite so much evidence at the time one should be more cautious.
If we allow the "intelligence community" to investigate the lab leak hypothesis, they're precisely the ones that stirred up the media frenzy over non-existent WMD in Iraq. So we're just asking for a repeat. The "intelligence community" has consistently spread misinformation about Syria, about Iraq, about Iran, about China, and about Russia (the nonsense about the Russians paying the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan). They are tools of the military restless for another war. Biden has a long record of war-mongering and xenophobia when it comes to China, so the "intelligence community" knows what their boss wants to hear, and will be eager to deliver, just like they did for Bush on Iraq.
Of course we should explore the possibility that this pandemic started with a lab leak, even though it is more likely that it started, well, the same way every other pandemic that's ever been studied has started. But that exploration should be by health experts with no axe to grind, not spooks with a long record of misinformation.
This. And not for nothing, but the WSJ reporter who authored about the sick lab workers was literally Judith Miller’s co-writer on some of the most notorious Iraq WMD stories for the Times. If there is a lesson to be learned here from those past experiences, it is to stop the stampede to a narratively satisfying but tendentious conclusion now, and wait for the science to play out.
I don't think national security reporting is adding much, and I am always wary of their claims for obvious reasons. But things would be better if crucial scientific facts had not been unearthed by random internet kid with Google translate and the curiosity journalists from traditional outlets around the world did not seem to exhibit, and a vocal group of scientists mostly on Twitter but not just had made it sound like the scientific discussion was conclusive and got most of media to go along. (Corrected typo!).
One thing I have been thinking about lately is the downstream effects of not covering this issue properly enough. Due to the blackout of this topic in the (American) media, we never got the point of talking about why was gain of function (etc) research such a dud in helping us get through the pandemic. As far as I can tell, most or all of the research that produced therapeutics and vaccines was produced by research that wasn't the result of this lab that was specifically studying coronaviruses of this exact nature.
A case could be made that the dangers of this kind of research are acceptable because they give us a headstart if one gets out via "natural" methods. But, if this wasn't a lab leak, the research done here seemingly gave us nothing. In addition to that, seems completely plausible that not only did the research give us nothing of value but it also could have been the cause of this turning into a pandemic. Even if the source is never pinned down, assessing risk/reward on this research seems like a good idea. Then, after that, figuring out an effective way to enforce what we find to be the right balance.
None of this has happened in the public eye (the latter of which is more or a political question than a scientific question), largely because the discussion got incorrectly short-circuited.
Well said. Often this blanket attack on everything Chinese is counterproductive and forces everyone to retreat into the safety of silence as louder voices prevail.
While everyone hails the great vaccine breakthrough, no one ever mentions it was Professor Zhang Yongzhen of Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center who made it all possible by releasing the genome of the virus in record speed to the entire world and without waiting for the official channels to do it. Scientists talk to each other in a language they understand. The trouble starts when politicians get into the act with their narrow vision on how the world should be.
Also, the amount of excellent science we got in late January early February once scientists from China were able to publish? It was incredible. I don't think it's sunk in how much we knew, exactly because they rushed and worked so hard to get things out the moment the restrictions were lifted (after Wuhan was closed, situation acknowledged).
Great point on how a filter effect on the experts willing to comment ended up distorting the conversation that was out there. I think this is sort of the dark side of your earlier points on needing to consider the sociological points of statements that you make. A lot of people want lab leak to be true simply to reduce the world into a simple ethno-nationalist framework (never mind how much US work and interest went on at the Wuhan lab), and it's easy to see why folks would want to sit on even true evidence if it's going to be distorted on that way. But what that means in practice is that the only people talking about lab leak are the ones who want to reduce the world into a simple entho-nationalist framework and the people who want to refute it; and the temptation is pretty overwhelming to just say "the entho-nationalists are factually wrong" and not "we have no idea if the facts are this way or not, but even if they are it wouldn't support your framework".
I's a coherent and true argument that "It could have been an escape from the Wuhan lab; this should prompt discussion about scientific institutions and risk, not nationalities or ideologies", the correct viewpoint loses a lot of potency when the entho-nationalists can correctly say "Hah! You were just trying to say the lab leak was impossible at first; you're only changing your mind when the truth is close at hand." Conspiratorial thinking ends up getting a lot of help from folks who are cautious with true facts when they think they'll lead to wrong conclusions.
Actually, this is why I'm in a minority of folks who was pretty happy with the CDC guidance change about fully vaccinated people. The statement "Does being vaccinated mean that being out without a mask is safe for everyone?" is a different one than "Should local mask mandates remain in place"? It's probably the right call to say YES to both. But there was a popular undercurrent of "If people know it's YES to question one, they'll never agree to YES to question two, so let's not say anything about question one for now regardless of evidence". Conspiracy thinking breeds from that kind of paternalistic omission, right? Now, I agree that the CDC should have done more to stress that these are two separate questions and that the answer to one didn't impact the other (they had a "still follow local mandates", but could have stood to reinforce it more). But in general, I do think it's good to remember you can really lose the initiative if you sit on facts because you're worried about the first-blush conclusions.
(With disclaimer that as a California health care employee, I knew that the guidance wouldn't lead to all mask mandates being dropped tomorrow or anything like that. Wanting the full truth is also something of a privileged position. It's very easy for me to say "Give me the facts and I'll do the work to steer them to the correct conclusion, even if the apparent destination of those facts is bad", but vulnerable people might not be able to survive that gulf between misleading-fact-being-revealed and misleading-fact-being-synthesized-into-correct-framework. How exactly do you balance gaining the credibility reserves of being willing to tell hard truths against "I am doing exactly the institutional lying I'm being accused of in a way that bolsters conspiracy theories, because if I don't vulnerable people will get hurt?" Interesting to think about.)
I think this is a very good post on sorting through some of this. "Lab involvement is plausible" clearly involves us and our labs as well. But we do not have the environment where we can, indeed, say "vaccinated are fine" and then talk about mask mandates, which are related but not the same question! I'm not sure how to navigate through this, but at least pointing out the landscape and mapping out the questions can maybe be helpful? Or so I can hope, kinda.
Great discussion - there are many lessons here. Among the most important imho: it's one more demonstration of the consequences of too much focus on misinformation and too little on how valid belief is constructed. With skepticism as a default posture, rather than a specialized tool to be deployed when we spot misinfo warning signs, it's a lot easier to avoid being carried along by a Narrative™ - as you so nicely brand it - for which no case has actually been made.
I agree: misinformation gets most of the buzz these days but it's easy to forget it's just one of a number of epistemic problems. There is also premature consensus (where a vacuum of diverse opinion exists), and "under-information."
I am deeply impressed by your meticulous investigation into this particular issue and value your opinions. My only contribution to the discussion is my objection to the term "racism" in the case of judgements involving China, or any other foreign government. I personally think we are tribal thinkers and particularly hostile to outgroups when feeling threatened by them. Not convinced "racism" would be the proper epithet to describe our defensive, circle-wagoning tendencies. Open as always, to differing opinions.
The onus for changing the Twitter/media feedback loop probably has to be on journalists. But do we need the true subject matter experts to engage more - or maybe that's an unfair call to distraction from their work, with little benefit as their voices might be lost in the cacophony.
So it is on the journalists, but yes, the academic structure needs to change and there also needs to be more encouragement, I think. But it is absolutely on the journalist, they keep quoting the same three people who are just on social media all day, regardless of their position in the field, track-record in predictions/analyses before, etc. Don't get me wrong I'm on social media a lot, too, but in this particular case, there are many people they could try, at least, to try to engage rather than just using the same few people or thinking around their claims.
There is, of course, another question beyond the filigree one you pursued: what was the relation between the MSM ignoring the possibility of a lab leak and the fact that Trump promoted it and the current opening up of the question and the fact that Biden has endorsed the Trump view that China is a menace? Now, I can imagine someone saying that there is no connection. It just so happens that the MSM made a mistake not considering the possibility in the first place and now has come to realize it was hasty. Sure. But of course this is not a one off case where the MSM has jumped to the wrong conclusion quite conclusively and then jump backed equally conclusively. There are patterns here and avoiding seeing them is a bit of a disservice.
At risk of seeming a nut, let me go further. Right now there is very little evidence that there was a lab leak. Indeed, there is some evidence that the virus was circulating in Italy BEFORE the dates being considered for the purported leak. This bit of evidence has not been prominently featured now that the new story is whether covid might really be the « kung flu. » Why not? Moreover, I dont hear much discussion of the fact that Biden has placed investigating the issue not in the hands of a scientific panel but in the hands of the Intelligence Community and gave them a deadline of 90 days. Any bets on how good an investigation that will be? If the issue had not already been politicized putting it in the hands of the CIA/DIA/NSC is sure to anchor it solidly in scientific facts, right (a rhetorical question)? Right now there is virtually no chance that an investigation will do anything useful at all, except exacerbate tensions that so e will find more useful than others.
Last point, a philo of science one: right now we have very little idea concerning the mechanisms of Covid’s evolution even from the base form to its more virulent Kent and Indian forms. That means we have no idea really on how the virus could have developed as we know next to nothing about how it changes. There is decent evidence that an ancestor was widely circulating in Europe and maybe China and maybe other places before the outbreak in January. That means there is decent reason to think that the virus evolved naturally. Remember, the Kent variant had many simultaneous mutations that drove its development, a large enough number that many were surprised as to how this might have happened and led to various speculations a out it lingering in semi sick people as hosts. This sounds far fetched, right? Do you think the British might have developed it in one of their many bio labs?
I could go on, but you no doubt get the point. The real question is whether this investigation can be conducted in good faith and on a scientific basis. I doubt it. You seem not to. I am wondering why.
Thanks Norbert. While we should acknowledge and investigate all plausible causes, we shouldn't forget how the "intelligence community" seeded anxiety and doubt (and fabricated evidence) over WMD in Iraq as the pretext for an unnecessary and ghastly, ongoing war. Please, let's not get fooled again.
A second concern is that almost all pandemics are zoonotic in origin, and as long as we keep on factory farming, harvesting exotic species, and deforesting the planet's last wilderness, there is a huge risk of many more, much worse pandemics in our future, without any labs needed to manufacture them. The 'lab leak' hypothesis, if it continues to gain credence in the popular mind, will provide yet another cover for the industries perpetrating these outrageously dangerous practices. "See, it wasn't us, it was a lab leak".
If you think Biden is above all this, here's a verbatim quote from a recent press conference: "[I have] made it clear that no American president, at least one did, but no American president had ever backed down from speaking out of what’s happening in the Uyghurs… So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to continue to grow and expand." How convenient for this "goal" if the "intelligence community" supports the 'lab leak' hypothesis.
Could not agree more. Even if we did not want this politicized, it has been as soon as Biden put the investigation in the hands if the IC. They are not scientists and they are independently not trustworthy. With this move Biden has assured that the « science » will be the least important factor driving the narrative.
If the virus was circulating in Italy, it likely came from China. The textile industry in northern Italy, where the outbreak was so catastrophic, employs large numbers of Chinese workers who travel back and forth visiting their families.
I think the Italy paper is not strong at all, and no real evidence of circulation outside of China before, let's say Fall of 2019, or before it was seen in China. That said, I get the skepticism after a year of so much denial of some obvious facts. But I see no plausible evidence of origin anywhere but China.
The facts seem to be that there is virus circulating in Italy in Sept 2019 among asymptomatic individuals. There was then a larger cluster in February 2020. If there was large travel between the two places then there are two possibilities: Chinese workers who caught it in China brought it to Italy or Chinese workers who caught it in Italy brought it to China. You say that the first is more likely than the second. On what do you base this for its an important point.
As regards Z’s comment below, is there evidence of circulation in China before fall of 2019? A reference would be great if you have one.
One last word: maybe this all originated in China. This seems quite plausible. And maybe it escaped from a lab. Again, possible though little direct data to date to back this up. However, given the political importance of the question and the certainty that it will be exploited for unpleasant ends we should ALL be very skeptical about everything and demand high standards of evidence before we lend credence to the claims. I fear that we wont do this and I believe I know why.
Agree about the necessity of being skeptical and the uses that are going to be, are already being made of this hypothesis. But it is likelier that the virus originated in China simply because its closest known relatives appear to be horseshoe bat viruses from the Hunan caves. Granted I don't know whether bat viruses in Italy have been investigated, or whether a relatively harmless, common-cold-like coronavirus from China could have been carried by an infected traveler to Italy and evolved there.
Question: How could we know there were asymptomatic cases circulating in Italy in September 2019? No one was aware of or looking for this virus then. From retrospective PCR tests or antibody tests of stored blood or tissue samples? Is there a reference that documents that?
There are no robust data on the real onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and spread in the prepandemic period worldwide. We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)–specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 and the highest number (53.2%) in Lombardy. This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.
Giovanni Apolone1*, Emanuele Montomoli2,3*, Alessandro Manenti3,4, Mattia Boeri1 , Federica Sabia1, Inesa Hyseni4, Livia Mazzini2,4, Donata Martinuzzi4, Laura Cantone5, Gianluca Milanese6, Stefano Sestini1, Paola Suatoni1, Alfonso Marchianò1, Valentina Bollati5, Gabriella Sozzi1 and Ugo Pastorino1
The method was to go back and look at data from people pre screened for a lung cancer trial. They discuss this above.
There is also a reference to this in Journal of World Economic forum co-published with Reuters. Headline is:
Coronavirus came to Italy almost 6 months before the first official case, new study shows
The date of publication is Nov16/2020. Author is Giselda Vagnoni.
There is also another suggestive study in the following:
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 May 4;msab118. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab118. Online ahead of print.
Here is the abstract:
Global sequencing of hundreds of thousands of genomes of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, has continued to reveal new genetic variants that are the key to unraveling its early evolutionary history and tracking its global spread over time. Here, we present the heretofore cryptic mutational history and spatiotemporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 from an analysis of thousands of high-quality genomes. We report the likely most recent common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, reconstructed through a novel application and advancement of computational methods initially developed to infer the mutational history of tumor cells in a patient. This progenitor genome differs from genomes of the first coronaviruses sampled in China by three variants, implying that none of the earliest patients represent the index case or gave rise to all the human infections. However, multiple coronavirus infections in China and the USA harbored the progenitor genetic fingerprint in January 2020 and later, suggesting that the progenitor was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time. Fingerprinting based on common mutations reveals that the same coronavirus lineage has dominated North America for most of the pandemic in 2020. There have been multiple replacements of predominant coronavirus strains in Europe and Asia and the continued presence of multiple high-frequency strains in Asia and North America. We have developed a continually updating dashboard of global evolution and spatiotemporal trends of SARS-CoV-2 spread (http://sars2evo.datamonkey.org/).
This argues that there is good evidence that the immediate ancestor of our Covid virus. Here is the interesting bit. The progenitor
was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time.
I am no expert on these matters, but the papers seem to be written by competent people and have appeared in serious journals put out by reptable publishers. They together suggest that things are likely far more complicated than we think and point to facts that sit ill with the China story. I would love to know your reactions to these. As I said, I am far from being an expert in these matters. Indeed I am not even qualified enough to count as an amateur.
Hmm. The method used was pretty pedestrian from what I can tell. Seeing if samples showed anti body indications of effects of covid. This is not particularly fancy biology, is it? Do you know if many other teams looked into this? Do you think the method used is suspect? Have others looked at similar samples and not found anything?
Again, excuse my skepticism, but I have been involved in other areas of the sciences where the principle which says that if it is true others would have confirmed it is not regarded as very solid. A bunch of negative reports would be decent contrary information. Absence of confirming reports, I personally find to be less persuasive. A little like hearing from economists who are passing a $20 bill on the road that there is no point in bending down to pick it up for if it were there someone would have picked it up already.
Both fascinating. I will try to read them later tonight. I'm not a scientist but I am a science copy editor so maybe I count as a distant amateur. That doesn't mean I can evaluate a paper or the methods of a study, but I can look for citations and commentary on them and get a sense of where they live in the "ecosystem" of Covid-19 research. Thanks!
The main point is that it is quite unclear what pursuing this question will teach us. So the old motto might apply: those things not worth doing are not worth doing well. In fact, the main potentially useful thing we might learn is something he thinks scientists won’t like. Namely that lab leaks might be sources of disease. The article is worth a read.
Hmm...I don't know. He makes a good point (kind of a post-hoc version of the precautionary principle) that sometimes it's enough to know a scenario is plausible to begin addressing it, rather than having to prove it's true. But I don't find his deflationary conclusion very convincing. Who says we can't work on both at the same time? You argue that the second undermines the first, but if anything I think they support each other. Assuming plausibility serves as a necessary but not sufficient minimum floor. Filling in the details of how this actually played out in practice, as opposed to modeling or training exercises (Zeynep's point about causal inference after the event entailing different and broader evidence), is key to developing more effective interventions; this doesn't happen without digging for the truth.
Perhaps more importantly, there's a very important question of accountability. If we simply treat it as plausible cause and move on, there is risk preparation but no consequences for irresponsible actors, and no deterrence. Would you make the same argument for cutting short inquiries into nuclear accidents, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, because we know how these accidents probably happened anyway?
"The project to identify the source of the coronavirus pandemic surely has moral, legal, and political significance; but with regard to global public health—and to the crucial project of pandemic-proofing for the future—its outcome matters only at the margins." But the moral, legal, and political significance is the whole point. This isn't just about the science and chasing proof for the sake of closure; it's about ethics, truth, influence, and the best data we can obtain to maximize the chance that we can prevent this next time.
The piece makes the important point that the lab leak hypothesis rests on virtually no new information, that the process of finding decent evolutionary etiologies is very complicated and uncertain, and that in this case we are already looking at a highly politicized situation (any analogies with Iraq WMDs indicates where we are).
So, I agree that the consequences of such an investigation are most likely to be « moral, legal and political », which is precisely what worries me. These are the kinds of consequences that will impede objective scientific inquiry and this means we are very unlikely to discover « the truth ». And we are very likely to start seeing monsters even where none exist and this will make fighting the next pandemic that much harder as governments will go to great lengths to hide rather than reveal information. This is a high price to pay for a « truth » we are very unlikely to find anyhow.
The essay was both sad and encouraging. Sad because it identified all of the sloppy thinking, reliance on the usual suspects, tribal allegiances, etc that hurt informed discussion. But it was encouraging in that these are human, and correctable failings. Reporters and essayists can do better especially helped by criticism, rewards and punishments.
When you are at Columbia, perhaps you can connect with Andrew Gelman and get some funding for a twice a year awards dinner to recognize the best and the worst of the prior months reportgage.
Thank you Zeynep, for this post. You have made sense of the refusal of many to take the possibility of the lab leak seriously- when, we find out, all along, we shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss the possibility.
With any investigation, It is important to ask what gain will result from answering a question? Placing the blame more narrowly for some millions of deaths and trillions of lost productivity doesn't seem like a gain to me. Deciding which actions in labs and in our contact with edible species will decrease the chance of this happening again sounds like a more reasonable goal. Finding out if recognition that a lab escape of an experimentally-enhanced coronavirus could have shortened the development of a vaccination strategy by still another month or two, if that could be what happened and if it were recognized and exploited -- that would be a gain.
> These people are not puppets of a singular government, and criticizing a government is not racism, it’s often a requirement of antiracism.
I very much agree with this principle. Nonetheless, there are inevitable accusations of racism from puppets of the government, and although there are many dissidents, there are also many (maybe more) adherents, who agrees with such accusations and take offense much the same as if from actual racist statements. Like believers in conspiracy theories, the mental distraught they feel is real; unlike conspiracy theories which usually are not real, though, the increase of risk of racist attacks may also be real. This is why it was especially hard to talk about “lab leak” theory during the Trump admin, and why it may be easier now, but still very hard.
The solution I think is that there needs to be a simultaneous crackdown of the racist organizations to offset their potential recruiting efforts or radicalizing effects. I don’t think that’s likely in the US, though, with its focus on free speech and racism in its police force.
Of course. I think that's one reason it's being discussed right now, because the president isn't on TV making outright racist remarks. It's also important for anyone discussing this to make actively antiracist statements, and try to broaden the discussion. Discussing labs? Let's discuss standards for everyone. Zoonosis? It's not only something that happens in China. etc.
"A mass media blackout" like this is truly incredible in 2021. It plays right into the hands of Trumpers. Profoundly not helpful.
Yeah, it felt like a blackout which is nuts, right? It's like we didn't learn a think from the Iraq/WMD crisis where groupthink and herding got most of the media going down the wrong path, despite so much evidence at the time one should be more cautious.
If we allow the "intelligence community" to investigate the lab leak hypothesis, they're precisely the ones that stirred up the media frenzy over non-existent WMD in Iraq. So we're just asking for a repeat. The "intelligence community" has consistently spread misinformation about Syria, about Iraq, about Iran, about China, and about Russia (the nonsense about the Russians paying the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan). They are tools of the military restless for another war. Biden has a long record of war-mongering and xenophobia when it comes to China, so the "intelligence community" knows what their boss wants to hear, and will be eager to deliver, just like they did for Bush on Iraq.
Of course we should explore the possibility that this pandemic started with a lab leak, even though it is more likely that it started, well, the same way every other pandemic that's ever been studied has started. But that exploration should be by health experts with no axe to grind, not spooks with a long record of misinformation.
This. And not for nothing, but the WSJ reporter who authored about the sick lab workers was literally Judith Miller’s co-writer on some of the most notorious Iraq WMD stories for the Times. If there is a lesson to be learned here from those past experiences, it is to stop the stampede to a narratively satisfying but tendentious conclusion now, and wait for the science to play out.
I don't think national security reporting is adding much, and I am always wary of their claims for obvious reasons. But things would be better if crucial scientific facts had not been unearthed by random internet kid with Google translate and the curiosity journalists from traditional outlets around the world did not seem to exhibit, and a vocal group of scientists mostly on Twitter but not just had made it sound like the scientific discussion was conclusive and got most of media to go along. (Corrected typo!).
Thank you for writing about this.
One thing I have been thinking about lately is the downstream effects of not covering this issue properly enough. Due to the blackout of this topic in the (American) media, we never got the point of talking about why was gain of function (etc) research such a dud in helping us get through the pandemic. As far as I can tell, most or all of the research that produced therapeutics and vaccines was produced by research that wasn't the result of this lab that was specifically studying coronaviruses of this exact nature.
A case could be made that the dangers of this kind of research are acceptable because they give us a headstart if one gets out via "natural" methods. But, if this wasn't a lab leak, the research done here seemingly gave us nothing. In addition to that, seems completely plausible that not only did the research give us nothing of value but it also could have been the cause of this turning into a pandemic. Even if the source is never pinned down, assessing risk/reward on this research seems like a good idea. Then, after that, figuring out an effective way to enforce what we find to be the right balance.
None of this has happened in the public eye (the latter of which is more or a political question than a scientific question), largely because the discussion got incorrectly short-circuited.
Yeah, we have not had a sane discussion on any of that. Maybe, as this portion dies down, some of that will come back into the discussion.
Well said. Often this blanket attack on everything Chinese is counterproductive and forces everyone to retreat into the safety of silence as louder voices prevail.
While everyone hails the great vaccine breakthrough, no one ever mentions it was Professor Zhang Yongzhen of Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center who made it all possible by releasing the genome of the virus in record speed to the entire world and without waiting for the official channels to do it. Scientists talk to each other in a language they understand. The trouble starts when politicians get into the act with their narrow vision on how the world should be.
Also, the amount of excellent science we got in late January early February once scientists from China were able to publish? It was incredible. I don't think it's sunk in how much we knew, exactly because they rushed and worked so hard to get things out the moment the restrictions were lifted (after Wuhan was closed, situation acknowledged).
Great point on how a filter effect on the experts willing to comment ended up distorting the conversation that was out there. I think this is sort of the dark side of your earlier points on needing to consider the sociological points of statements that you make. A lot of people want lab leak to be true simply to reduce the world into a simple ethno-nationalist framework (never mind how much US work and interest went on at the Wuhan lab), and it's easy to see why folks would want to sit on even true evidence if it's going to be distorted on that way. But what that means in practice is that the only people talking about lab leak are the ones who want to reduce the world into a simple entho-nationalist framework and the people who want to refute it; and the temptation is pretty overwhelming to just say "the entho-nationalists are factually wrong" and not "we have no idea if the facts are this way or not, but even if they are it wouldn't support your framework".
I's a coherent and true argument that "It could have been an escape from the Wuhan lab; this should prompt discussion about scientific institutions and risk, not nationalities or ideologies", the correct viewpoint loses a lot of potency when the entho-nationalists can correctly say "Hah! You were just trying to say the lab leak was impossible at first; you're only changing your mind when the truth is close at hand." Conspiratorial thinking ends up getting a lot of help from folks who are cautious with true facts when they think they'll lead to wrong conclusions.
Actually, this is why I'm in a minority of folks who was pretty happy with the CDC guidance change about fully vaccinated people. The statement "Does being vaccinated mean that being out without a mask is safe for everyone?" is a different one than "Should local mask mandates remain in place"? It's probably the right call to say YES to both. But there was a popular undercurrent of "If people know it's YES to question one, they'll never agree to YES to question two, so let's not say anything about question one for now regardless of evidence". Conspiracy thinking breeds from that kind of paternalistic omission, right? Now, I agree that the CDC should have done more to stress that these are two separate questions and that the answer to one didn't impact the other (they had a "still follow local mandates", but could have stood to reinforce it more). But in general, I do think it's good to remember you can really lose the initiative if you sit on facts because you're worried about the first-blush conclusions.
(With disclaimer that as a California health care employee, I knew that the guidance wouldn't lead to all mask mandates being dropped tomorrow or anything like that. Wanting the full truth is also something of a privileged position. It's very easy for me to say "Give me the facts and I'll do the work to steer them to the correct conclusion, even if the apparent destination of those facts is bad", but vulnerable people might not be able to survive that gulf between misleading-fact-being-revealed and misleading-fact-being-synthesized-into-correct-framework. How exactly do you balance gaining the credibility reserves of being willing to tell hard truths against "I am doing exactly the institutional lying I'm being accused of in a way that bolsters conspiracy theories, because if I don't vulnerable people will get hurt?" Interesting to think about.)
I think this is a very good post on sorting through some of this. "Lab involvement is plausible" clearly involves us and our labs as well. But we do not have the environment where we can, indeed, say "vaccinated are fine" and then talk about mask mandates, which are related but not the same question! I'm not sure how to navigate through this, but at least pointing out the landscape and mapping out the questions can maybe be helpful? Or so I can hope, kinda.
Great discussion - there are many lessons here. Among the most important imho: it's one more demonstration of the consequences of too much focus on misinformation and too little on how valid belief is constructed. With skepticism as a default posture, rather than a specialized tool to be deployed when we spot misinfo warning signs, it's a lot easier to avoid being carried along by a Narrative™ - as you so nicely brand it - for which no case has actually been made.
I agree: misinformation gets most of the buzz these days but it's easy to forget it's just one of a number of epistemic problems. There is also premature consensus (where a vacuum of diverse opinion exists), and "under-information."
I am deeply impressed by your meticulous investigation into this particular issue and value your opinions. My only contribution to the discussion is my objection to the term "racism" in the case of judgements involving China, or any other foreign government. I personally think we are tribal thinkers and particularly hostile to outgroups when feeling threatened by them. Not convinced "racism" would be the proper epithet to describe our defensive, circle-wagoning tendencies. Open as always, to differing opinions.
The onus for changing the Twitter/media feedback loop probably has to be on journalists. But do we need the true subject matter experts to engage more - or maybe that's an unfair call to distraction from their work, with little benefit as their voices might be lost in the cacophony.
So it is on the journalists, but yes, the academic structure needs to change and there also needs to be more encouragement, I think. But it is absolutely on the journalist, they keep quoting the same three people who are just on social media all day, regardless of their position in the field, track-record in predictions/analyses before, etc. Don't get me wrong I'm on social media a lot, too, but in this particular case, there are many people they could try, at least, to try to engage rather than just using the same few people or thinking around their claims.
There is, of course, another question beyond the filigree one you pursued: what was the relation between the MSM ignoring the possibility of a lab leak and the fact that Trump promoted it and the current opening up of the question and the fact that Biden has endorsed the Trump view that China is a menace? Now, I can imagine someone saying that there is no connection. It just so happens that the MSM made a mistake not considering the possibility in the first place and now has come to realize it was hasty. Sure. But of course this is not a one off case where the MSM has jumped to the wrong conclusion quite conclusively and then jump backed equally conclusively. There are patterns here and avoiding seeing them is a bit of a disservice.
At risk of seeming a nut, let me go further. Right now there is very little evidence that there was a lab leak. Indeed, there is some evidence that the virus was circulating in Italy BEFORE the dates being considered for the purported leak. This bit of evidence has not been prominently featured now that the new story is whether covid might really be the « kung flu. » Why not? Moreover, I dont hear much discussion of the fact that Biden has placed investigating the issue not in the hands of a scientific panel but in the hands of the Intelligence Community and gave them a deadline of 90 days. Any bets on how good an investigation that will be? If the issue had not already been politicized putting it in the hands of the CIA/DIA/NSC is sure to anchor it solidly in scientific facts, right (a rhetorical question)? Right now there is virtually no chance that an investigation will do anything useful at all, except exacerbate tensions that so e will find more useful than others.
Last point, a philo of science one: right now we have very little idea concerning the mechanisms of Covid’s evolution even from the base form to its more virulent Kent and Indian forms. That means we have no idea really on how the virus could have developed as we know next to nothing about how it changes. There is decent evidence that an ancestor was widely circulating in Europe and maybe China and maybe other places before the outbreak in January. That means there is decent reason to think that the virus evolved naturally. Remember, the Kent variant had many simultaneous mutations that drove its development, a large enough number that many were surprised as to how this might have happened and led to various speculations a out it lingering in semi sick people as hosts. This sounds far fetched, right? Do you think the British might have developed it in one of their many bio labs?
I could go on, but you no doubt get the point. The real question is whether this investigation can be conducted in good faith and on a scientific basis. I doubt it. You seem not to. I am wondering why.
Thanks Norbert. While we should acknowledge and investigate all plausible causes, we shouldn't forget how the "intelligence community" seeded anxiety and doubt (and fabricated evidence) over WMD in Iraq as the pretext for an unnecessary and ghastly, ongoing war. Please, let's not get fooled again.
A second concern is that almost all pandemics are zoonotic in origin, and as long as we keep on factory farming, harvesting exotic species, and deforesting the planet's last wilderness, there is a huge risk of many more, much worse pandemics in our future, without any labs needed to manufacture them. The 'lab leak' hypothesis, if it continues to gain credence in the popular mind, will provide yet another cover for the industries perpetrating these outrageously dangerous practices. "See, it wasn't us, it was a lab leak".
If you think Biden is above all this, here's a verbatim quote from a recent press conference: "[I have] made it clear that no American president, at least one did, but no American president had ever backed down from speaking out of what’s happening in the Uyghurs… So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to continue to grow and expand." How convenient for this "goal" if the "intelligence community" supports the 'lab leak' hypothesis.
Could not agree more. Even if we did not want this politicized, it has been as soon as Biden put the investigation in the hands if the IC. They are not scientists and they are independently not trustworthy. With this move Biden has assured that the « science » will be the least important factor driving the narrative.
If the virus was circulating in Italy, it likely came from China. The textile industry in northern Italy, where the outbreak was so catastrophic, employs large numbers of Chinese workers who travel back and forth visiting their families.
I think the Italy paper is not strong at all, and no real evidence of circulation outside of China before, let's say Fall of 2019, or before it was seen in China. That said, I get the skepticism after a year of so much denial of some obvious facts. But I see no plausible evidence of origin anywhere but China.
The facts seem to be that there is virus circulating in Italy in Sept 2019 among asymptomatic individuals. There was then a larger cluster in February 2020. If there was large travel between the two places then there are two possibilities: Chinese workers who caught it in China brought it to Italy or Chinese workers who caught it in Italy brought it to China. You say that the first is more likely than the second. On what do you base this for its an important point.
As regards Z’s comment below, is there evidence of circulation in China before fall of 2019? A reference would be great if you have one.
One last word: maybe this all originated in China. This seems quite plausible. And maybe it escaped from a lab. Again, possible though little direct data to date to back this up. However, given the political importance of the question and the certainty that it will be exploited for unpleasant ends we should ALL be very skeptical about everything and demand high standards of evidence before we lend credence to the claims. I fear that we wont do this and I believe I know why.
Agree about the necessity of being skeptical and the uses that are going to be, are already being made of this hypothesis. But it is likelier that the virus originated in China simply because its closest known relatives appear to be horseshoe bat viruses from the Hunan caves. Granted I don't know whether bat viruses in Italy have been investigated, or whether a relatively harmless, common-cold-like coronavirus from China could have been carried by an infected traveler to Italy and evolved there.
Question: How could we know there were asymptomatic cases circulating in Italy in September 2019? No one was aware of or looking for this virus then. From retrospective PCR tests or antibody tests of stored blood or tissue samples? Is there a reference that documents that?
Here is the paper I was relying on:
Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in
the prepandemic period in Italy.
Here is the abstract:
There are no robust data on the real onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and spread in the prepandemic period worldwide. We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)–specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 and the highest number (53.2%) in Lombardy. This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.
Here is the bib reference:
Tumori Journal
1–6
© Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620974755
DOI: 10.1177/0300891620974755 journals.sagepub.com/home/tmj
And the authors:
Giovanni Apolone1*, Emanuele Montomoli2,3*, Alessandro Manenti3,4, Mattia Boeri1 , Federica Sabia1, Inesa Hyseni4, Livia Mazzini2,4, Donata Martinuzzi4, Laura Cantone5, Gianluca Milanese6, Stefano Sestini1, Paola Suatoni1, Alfonso Marchianò1, Valentina Bollati5, Gabriella Sozzi1 and Ugo Pastorino1
The method was to go back and look at data from people pre screened for a lung cancer trial. They discuss this above.
There is also a reference to this in Journal of World Economic forum co-published with Reuters. Headline is:
Coronavirus came to Italy almost 6 months before the first official case, new study shows
The date of publication is Nov16/2020. Author is Giselda Vagnoni.
There is also another suggestive study in the following:
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 May 4;msab118. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab118. Online ahead of print.
Here is the abstract:
Global sequencing of hundreds of thousands of genomes of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, has continued to reveal new genetic variants that are the key to unraveling its early evolutionary history and tracking its global spread over time. Here, we present the heretofore cryptic mutational history and spatiotemporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 from an analysis of thousands of high-quality genomes. We report the likely most recent common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, reconstructed through a novel application and advancement of computational methods initially developed to infer the mutational history of tumor cells in a patient. This progenitor genome differs from genomes of the first coronaviruses sampled in China by three variants, implying that none of the earliest patients represent the index case or gave rise to all the human infections. However, multiple coronavirus infections in China and the USA harbored the progenitor genetic fingerprint in January 2020 and later, suggesting that the progenitor was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time. Fingerprinting based on common mutations reveals that the same coronavirus lineage has dominated North America for most of the pandemic in 2020. There have been multiple replacements of predominant coronavirus strains in Europe and Asia and the continued presence of multiple high-frequency strains in Asia and North America. We have developed a continually updating dashboard of global evolution and spatiotemporal trends of SARS-CoV-2 spread (http://sars2evo.datamonkey.org/).
This argues that there is good evidence that the immediate ancestor of our Covid virus. Here is the interesting bit. The progenitor
was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time.
I am no expert on these matters, but the papers seem to be written by competent people and have appeared in serious journals put out by reptable publishers. They together suggest that things are likely far more complicated than we think and point to facts that sit ill with the China story. I would love to know your reactions to these. As I said, I am far from being an expert in these matters. Indeed I am not even qualified enough to count as an amateur.
I don’t think that paper is solid. And if it were the case we would’ve had many other papers confirming it.
Hmm. The method used was pretty pedestrian from what I can tell. Seeing if samples showed anti body indications of effects of covid. This is not particularly fancy biology, is it? Do you know if many other teams looked into this? Do you think the method used is suspect? Have others looked at similar samples and not found anything?
Again, excuse my skepticism, but I have been involved in other areas of the sciences where the principle which says that if it is true others would have confirmed it is not regarded as very solid. A bunch of negative reports would be decent contrary information. Absence of confirming reports, I personally find to be less persuasive. A little like hearing from economists who are passing a $20 bill on the road that there is no point in bending down to pick it up for if it were there someone would have picked it up already.
Both fascinating. I will try to read them later tonight. I'm not a scientist but I am a science copy editor so maybe I count as a distant amateur. That doesn't mean I can evaluate a paper or the methods of a study, but I can look for citations and commentary on them and get a sense of where they live in the "ecosystem" of Covid-19 research. Thanks!
Great. Please let us know what you find.
Here is a useful piece on this issue in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/chinese-lab-leak-hypothesis-coronavirus/619000/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210527&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily
The main point is that it is quite unclear what pursuing this question will teach us. So the old motto might apply: those things not worth doing are not worth doing well. In fact, the main potentially useful thing we might learn is something he thinks scientists won’t like. Namely that lab leaks might be sources of disease. The article is worth a read.
Hmm...I don't know. He makes a good point (kind of a post-hoc version of the precautionary principle) that sometimes it's enough to know a scenario is plausible to begin addressing it, rather than having to prove it's true. But I don't find his deflationary conclusion very convincing. Who says we can't work on both at the same time? You argue that the second undermines the first, but if anything I think they support each other. Assuming plausibility serves as a necessary but not sufficient minimum floor. Filling in the details of how this actually played out in practice, as opposed to modeling or training exercises (Zeynep's point about causal inference after the event entailing different and broader evidence), is key to developing more effective interventions; this doesn't happen without digging for the truth.
Perhaps more importantly, there's a very important question of accountability. If we simply treat it as plausible cause and move on, there is risk preparation but no consequences for irresponsible actors, and no deterrence. Would you make the same argument for cutting short inquiries into nuclear accidents, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, because we know how these accidents probably happened anyway?
"The project to identify the source of the coronavirus pandemic surely has moral, legal, and political significance; but with regard to global public health—and to the crucial project of pandemic-proofing for the future—its outcome matters only at the margins." But the moral, legal, and political significance is the whole point. This isn't just about the science and chasing proof for the sake of closure; it's about ethics, truth, influence, and the best data we can obtain to maximize the chance that we can prevent this next time.
Here is a reasonable, imo, summary of where we are now: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far?utm_term=36b5e25ef857ca920a18de99f147a356&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email
The piece makes the important point that the lab leak hypothesis rests on virtually no new information, that the process of finding decent evolutionary etiologies is very complicated and uncertain, and that in this case we are already looking at a highly politicized situation (any analogies with Iraq WMDs indicates where we are).
So, I agree that the consequences of such an investigation are most likely to be « moral, legal and political », which is precisely what worries me. These are the kinds of consequences that will impede objective scientific inquiry and this means we are very unlikely to discover « the truth ». And we are very likely to start seeing monsters even where none exist and this will make fighting the next pandemic that much harder as governments will go to great lengths to hide rather than reveal information. This is a high price to pay for a « truth » we are very unlikely to find anyhow.
The essay was both sad and encouraging. Sad because it identified all of the sloppy thinking, reliance on the usual suspects, tribal allegiances, etc that hurt informed discussion. But it was encouraging in that these are human, and correctable failings. Reporters and essayists can do better especially helped by criticism, rewards and punishments.
When you are at Columbia, perhaps you can connect with Andrew Gelman and get some funding for a twice a year awards dinner to recognize the best and the worst of the prior months reportgage.
Thank you Zeynep, for this post. You have made sense of the refusal of many to take the possibility of the lab leak seriously- when, we find out, all along, we shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss the possibility.
With any investigation, It is important to ask what gain will result from answering a question? Placing the blame more narrowly for some millions of deaths and trillions of lost productivity doesn't seem like a gain to me. Deciding which actions in labs and in our contact with edible species will decrease the chance of this happening again sounds like a more reasonable goal. Finding out if recognition that a lab escape of an experimentally-enhanced coronavirus could have shortened the development of a vaccination strategy by still another month or two, if that could be what happened and if it were recognized and exploited -- that would be a gain.
At least, lab safety in general...
> These people are not puppets of a singular government, and criticizing a government is not racism, it’s often a requirement of antiracism.
I very much agree with this principle. Nonetheless, there are inevitable accusations of racism from puppets of the government, and although there are many dissidents, there are also many (maybe more) adherents, who agrees with such accusations and take offense much the same as if from actual racist statements. Like believers in conspiracy theories, the mental distraught they feel is real; unlike conspiracy theories which usually are not real, though, the increase of risk of racist attacks may also be real. This is why it was especially hard to talk about “lab leak” theory during the Trump admin, and why it may be easier now, but still very hard.
The solution I think is that there needs to be a simultaneous crackdown of the racist organizations to offset their potential recruiting efforts or radicalizing effects. I don’t think that’s likely in the US, though, with its focus on free speech and racism in its police force.
Of course. I think that's one reason it's being discussed right now, because the president isn't on TV making outright racist remarks. It's also important for anyone discussing this to make actively antiracist statements, and try to broaden the discussion. Discussing labs? Let's discuss standards for everyone. Zoonosis? It's not only something that happens in China. etc.