There was an intriguing analysis recently published by Stat News regarding the ongoing debate as to the origins of the Panic in 2020. It has been almost five years since the first cases of the disease were recognized in December 2019. Nonetheless, some believe there were cases earlier that fall. In any event, we rapidly approach the five-year anniversary.
Collectively, we grasp the various changes it brought. In the first sense, we would be remiss if we did not pause to remember the three million that this disease killed. That is tragic from any perspective, though debate continues as to the actual count. Inevitably, scientific study has ensued. There are grants and programs supporting the inquiry. A great many brilliant minds are striving to better understand this coronavirus and its effects.
In a parallel sense, there are also many studying and evaluating what this experience has done to our lives. There are economic, social, and societal impacts that are perceived. Mental health is often mentioned. There are perhaps distinctions based on various demographics, geography, and more. For example, it is likely COVID-19 (and the various reactions to it) were more impactful on those who lost their senior prom, high school graduation, or similar life-event experiences. Those topics will be studied for years to come.
One of the primary inquiries is about the virus itself, in some ways similar to the discussions of where the universe originated. In the complexity of our world, there has long been curiosity as to the intricacy of the human body and other species. We are complex. Is our presence here a grand and coincidental spontaneity that "just happened" or was some intelligent design involved? Similarly, did COVID-19 "just happen" or was there human involvement?
The author of the Stat News piece spells out what is "well known" - COVID-19 "began in Wuhan, China." That has seemingly been accepted. Notably, we have also been told that it is possible some humans can carry this infection with no symptoms perceived. Thus, it seems, there is some potential that the disease started elsewhere and was carried to Wuhan by its own "typhoid Mary."
In fact, the author notes that thousands are infected with animal viruses each year, remain asymptomatic, and essentially never know. If they have no symptoms, how are these transmissions ever discovered, documented, and confirmed? Nonetheless, the author is certain that the SARS-CoV-2 "began in Wuhan."
Now the debate rages as to how humans became infected with this virus, and we are pointed to "two competing hypotheses." The author contends that we should accept and adopt one of those, because the other is "hindering the process of scientific discovery." The impact or result of one hypothesis is perceived as troubling, and thus the author argues for acceptance of the second hypothesis. It is an interesting analysis perhaps focused more on expediency than science. Essentially, the author urges everyone to get on the consensus train and quit hurting the feelings of its adherents.
One hypothesis is that we suffered a spontaneous transmission from "an animal to one or more humans," called "zoonosis." In this, there are some facts that we must accept. First, there was COVID-19 in some particular animal in some location, and that its interaction with a human(s) resulted in infection. This is not unheard of, various viral agents have reportedly made similar jumps to humans.
The second hypothesis is that a "virus was modified ... or even created," in a lab in Wuhan and it "somehow escaped the laboratory." In this, there are similar variables we must accept. First, that there was such a virus in a particular laboratory, and that it was somehow transmitted or transferred to others through some inadvertence, error, or misstep.
Billions of dollars, and five years, later the debate persists. In a world that told us the government traced Mad Cow disease down to patient (cow) zero with little difficulty, there remains no definitive answer to the where and how questions of COVID-19 origin. We have become somewhat accustomed to science providing definitive answers to our many questions.
Perhaps, such tracing and definition is more practical in a free society like the US or Canada? Or, maybe it is easier with mad cows?
The Stat News author (a professor of microbiology and immunology) provides an analysis of the two theories and concludes we have a societal "schism." He speaks, he says, for "Most scientists," and assures us that they "do not" accept the "lab leak" hypothesis. He assures us that continued discussion of that theory "threatens ... legitimate and ultimately socially important work" of virologists.
He and 41 other virologists have published a "peer-reviewed" article on this and so, seemingly, the public should accept the zoonosis hypothesis and simply move on. This is, essentially, an argument that there is consensus, a majority ("most"), and thus there should be consensus. Some who have studied history will remember when there was a similar, solid, science community, consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. The brightest scientists can and have been mistaken. That goes for proponents of both current hypotheses and those yet discovered.
The Stat author contends that "The zoonosis hypothesis is solidly evidence-based" (providing links in the original to other sources). Notably, one of the sources cited, Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market, Nature (April 2023), prominently concludes "Its origins remain uncertain." The linked sources are worthy of reading. But, their authoritativeness is perhaps less absolute than the Stat author concludes. The Nature source cited does not say it is "x," but merely that uncertainty remains.
The author concludes that SARS-CoV-2 is one of three infections that have resulted from "zoonotic transfer." This assumes as true one of the two hypotheses as regards CoV-2 (and may similarly assume the origins of two others - MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-1). We are instructed to accept that zoonosis is the root in the third, "because it is," and that is supported by the hypothesis that it also was in others, "because it was." These are more consensus arguments, and some may see more layering of assumptions than science, per se.
Nonetheless, there is no citation of any "lab leak" foundation or hypothesis for either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1. Is the proof of their zoonosis the absence of other hypotheses regarding them? That singularity may lead to the conclusion (consensus) that these two must be zoonosis as there is no other path. No other path seen or looked for?
There are various conclusory statements. The Stat article is thin on any outline of the proof that zoonosis was the root in any of the three cited viral cross-overs. The leap of logic in affirming zoonosis as "the" cause in CoV-2, when the very debate of this is the article topic, may suggest to some a logic flaw in the argument. To some, that may simply create greater doubt as to all the conclusions or allegations stated.
There is then presented a "parade of horribles" argument regarding the potential for death from viral infection. There is a reference to other pandemics, influenza, and the terrible price in human lives. Yes, there is danger. Yes many died. The results are tragic.
But, anyone who doubts the efficacy and efficiency of modern medicine should compare the perhaps 3 million COVID-19 deaths to the 50 million killed by the 1918 influenza. Sanitation? Communication? Innoculation? The reason for that disparity may be multifaceted, but nonetheless, the amazing outcome is notable. Science and scientists undoubtedly deserve much of the credit for this disparity.
Each week on every platform (we used to call them television networks), there is some coverage of an arrest or conviction based on DNA. The Hollywood writers have convinced us that every question of source can be answered by this science. Well, in truth, there are still questions about DNA, probabilities, and statistics. See DNA Evidence in the Legal System, National Institute of Health. Nonetheless, where is the DNA evidence in this instance?
And, as important, can DNA conclusively exclude the potential that any infection was or was not stored, manipulated, or leaked from a laboratory as opposed to naturally transmitted? In other words can DNA prove path or merely source?
The author illustrates that the "illegal wildlife trade" is extensive and pervasive. He describes the interaction with "exotic animals." From this, he perceives an increased or common "risk of viral transmission." There is no description of the volume of laboratories in the world that involve humans working with or possessing or being in "close proximity" with viral samples, nor how prevalent that was in Wuhan. This argument seems to be about odds or risks. Nonetheless, without a factual foundation on actual proof, the conclusion is simply that there is no evidence for the "lab leak hypothesis."
In the end, there is opinion and consensus. In the world of determinations, opinions of experts play an intense and frequent role. Billions of dollars in damages are sought in damages for a variety of injuries and illnesses across the globe every year. Those who seek those damages are burdened with proving the existence of injury and the causative agent. Juries and judges strive to understand not only the expert opinion: "this caused that," but also the foundation that supports conclusions.
I have been privileged to lecture many times on the idea of credibility. On what basis does that jury or judge decide that this or that opinion is the more persuasive? Does the doctor with the prettiest smile persuade more readily? Is it the expert who attended the premier college or university? Unfortunately, sometimes so. But more likely, the opinion that is accepted is the one that is described the best, supported by scientific fact and finding, and explained.
The point is that anyone can tell me the best burger in the business is from XYZ Burger. In the STAT author’s path the prevalence of XYZ locations might alone be persuasive or conclusive.
But the best expert can break it down. She can explain to me how she used empirical data to analyze specific factors. She can be conversational about how those factors test the hypothesis and confirm or disprove the foundation and assumptions. She can "show her work" as they taught us in 3rd grade. She can take me from hypothesis to proof and show not only that 4 is the right answer, but that the equation, function, and process of reaching 4 make sense.
That is what is perhaps missing from the origin description in the Stat News article. It seems to reach conclusions. It endorses a hypothesis based on feelings and conclusions and derides another similarly. But, as Cuba Gooding, Jr. exalted, "Show me the science!" (paraphrasing)(Jerry McGuire, Tristar 1996). The scientific process demands nothing less.
Nonetheless, there is a significant portion of the article devoted to the perception that scientists are being threatened and belittled on social media. There is no room for violence or threats of violence in a civil society. If you disagree with this post, please say so. Tell me I am mistaken, pick apart my logic, my grammar, or my conclusions. But don't threaten me with violence. That is never the path and never the answer to disagreement.
That said, by putting this out on the internet, I am inviting your criticism. Every picture you post, every tweet you x (or x you tweet), and every follow, like, or comment is your opinion. You are entitled to put it out there. You are not entitled to insist that no one disagrees with you. To ask or expect otherwise is beyond the pale of ridiculous. No matter how popular or non-controversial your comment, someone may well disagree. That is discourse. It is healthy.
To suggest that people should stop believing some hypothesis because it hurts the feelings of those with different beliefs is absurd. Well, until there is science to back it. If I insist the world is flat, that Elvis is alive, and that touching girls causes "cooties," perhaps you might soundly ridicule my conclusions, processes, or more.
But, even then, ridicule the message and not the messenger. In this instance, the Stat News author cannot prove one hypothesis or disprove the other. The science is not there, and the jury is out. He expresses an opinion. He persuades. He may be right or wrong ultimately. But he deserves neither ridicule or threats.
The bottom line is that no debate should include violence or threats of violence. No matter how wrong or misguided one perceives someone else's opinions on such a question it is inappropriate to threaten, dox, or harm. There is simply no room for it, regardless of whether one accepts or rejects someone's conclusions, process, or thoughts.
Debate is healthy. Differences in perspective stimulate growth. Learning is often a long process. Let’s put aside hate and threats to strive for greater understanding?
