Wikipedia

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 6

< Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2
(Redirected from Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19/Archive 6)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by KristinaLu in topic Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Two kinds of laboratory leak? Confusion of terms

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

There are lots of sources recently talking about the origins of COVID. Media changes day by day, and I think people here have read sources, so I am not citing any particular source. I want to share my reading of the theories

  1. zoonosis / natural origin - the COVID virus came from an animal, perhaps a bat, which transmitted during a chance encounter to an unknown but typical person visiting the wilderness. That human then passed the virus on to other humans, starting the epidemic.
  2. laboratory leak, evil scientist engineers the virus - this is the conspiracy theory for which there are not reliable sources supporting, but which a lot of reliable sources name for the purpose of denying. It says that Chinese scientists working with the Illuminati artificially created the virus for complicated reasons.
  3. laboratory leak, zoonosis A virologist, perhaps in a Wuhan research laboratory, is studying COVID-19 and accidentally becomes infected by this natural virus perhaps by zoonosis. As COVID-19 is contagious, this scientist spreads the zoonotic, natural, non-engineered infection.

As I am looking at very popular media sources and the conversation on Wikipedia. I see sources in support of zoonotic origin, and I see sources and wiki conversation against "laboratory leak" but I think in context that means "leak of an engineered virus". Is there a distinction between "lab leak - mad science" versus "lab leak - zoonosis"? When sources are exploring laboratory leak, is my reading accurate that there are crazy and non-crazy lab leak theories, and that many media sources are themselves confused about distinguishing them? Or am I just confused? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I will share some sources, but there are so many more, and these are just examples but not representative. There is this paper
  • Bloom, Jesse D.; Chan, Yujia Alina; Baric, Ralph S.; Bjorkman, Pamela J.; Cobey, Sarah; Deverman, Benjamin E.; Fisman, David N.; Gupta, Ravindra; Iwasaki, Akiko; Lipsitch, Marc; Medzhitov, Ruslan; Neher, Richard A.; Nielsen, Rasmus; Patterson, Nick; Stearns, Tim; van Nimwegen, Erik; Worobey, Michael; Relman, David A. (2021-05-14). "Investigate the origins of COVID-19". Science. 372 (6543): 694.1–694. doi:10.1126/science.abj0016.
and this commentary from the lead author
In the original letter and the opinion piece a month later, the author still frames the issue as if a lab accident cannot be a zoonotic cause. To me, a scientist who for any reason contracts a zoonotic infection is still a zoonotic origin of disease. I do not mean to do original interpretation here, but I find it hard to understand the source material. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: There are some scientific sources which mention this. In the list here, a few make the explicit difference between the "engineered virus" nonsense and the "natural virus accidentally released". The most comprehensive is this recent review, (compare section 1.1 with 1.5), as well as of course the WHO report. Regarding misinformation, and politics, there is of course much confusion between the possible (but unlikely) and the bullshit scenario - this highlights the issue rather well, IMHO:

This matters for the lab-leak theory. A headline such as "Biden Orders Investigation into Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory" does not discriminate between the credible version of that theory and the conspiratorial version. The crucial differences between these two theories are therefore likely to be lost to a reader who – as many do – simply reads a headline and then shares the article.

Most scientific sources, however, seem to be in agreement that no. 1 of the three scenarios you identify is the most likely, and many recent papers seem to be exploring details about this. For example, the paper I added here talks about closely related strains found in bat samples, and many sources which I tried to make a census of (before losing motivation by being bombarded with the same kind of non-scientific sources which are good for politics but useless for science), here, also seem to give short shrift to the "it came via a lab" idea. This makes the argument that "Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An opinion letter isn't much of a source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 
Scholia has a profile for origin of COVID-19 (Q103224114).
@RandomCanadian: I took some of your sources from User:RandomCanadian/The_origins_of_COVID-19:_literature_review and processed them in meta:Wikicite for profiling in Scholia, both of which are projects I develop. Thanks for the response and research compilation. I was looking at your list and was unsure if all the sources you listed actually address COVID origins, because you have notes for some and not for others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: As I said, I've checked some, but then I lost motivation. The profile on Scholia seems to not contain some important papers, including this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I added The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Q87830056). If I could more easily identify which papers have origin of COVID-19 (Q103224114) as main subject (P921) then I might tag more, but I will not ask you to take up a project you put down. Your documentation is interesting though, that must have taken a lot of effort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks! The project is not abandoned (I do add new papers when I fall upon them), it's just on hold until I find more reason to put up the same kind of effort which led to its creation. As for doing this kind of thing, it's just a very standard keyword search strategy, as commonly employed in most forms of serious academic research (I had to do the same kind of thing, and document it quite thoroughly, for some musicology papers rather recently - the difference between searching for mendelssohn AND "organ sonata" on JSTOR and other databases and searching for covid AND origin on PubMed is not particularly substantial). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry please can you add these PMIDs to your Wikicite project: 32786014, 33194988, 33200842, 33531884, 32773024, 33786037, 34046923, 33910809 and 34141073. CutePeach (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Don't. None of these are in credible journals as far as I can see (I haven't checked all of them, but the first few don't seem to), none of their authors are credible virologists, and they're all WP:PROFRINGE nonsense. @CP Why are you suggesting those when they've already been discussed multiple times on talk pages and dismissed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: please allow Bluerasberry to use his own critical thinking in selecting sources. You do not want to give him the impression that you WP:OWN this page. We are all WP:HERE to build this encyclopedia together. Tagging Loganmac [1]. CutePeach (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, come on. You and RandomCanadian are both telling Bluerasberry what to do. You said please, but RC gave reasons for the request. Don't pretend that RC's request takes away BR's choice or is in any way worse or more WP:OWNy than yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We made the news!

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Great read. Thanks for mentioning. Courtesy ping to the folks mentioned by name in the article: @Forich, L235, Alexbrn, Colin, and Jimbo Wales:. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
While they used my sock puppet picture (which is fine) I should note I was contacted by the journalist for an interview and declined. But the piece seems broadly fine. Alexbrn (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Always a good technique Alexbrn. I have great respect for journalists, but yeah I also would have declined if I were you. I only agree to interviews when I can respond to direct questions in text form, and if I can see the final version of the article and decline to participate if I believe I've been misconstrued. A lot of journalists will say no to that, but some will say yes.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow, great to see our work being covered in the news! Congratz to all the hard-working editors who have participated in the discussions reviewed in the article. Jackson Ryan is the name of the journalist who wrote the piece, he did a very good job I think Forich (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've got a few minor complaints (didn't really mention this article, was basically limited to Pandemic main article and the deleted POV-fork), but overall complimentary and recognizes that it's a difficult task no matter what the answer. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It is rare to read an article about Wikipedia that gets things broadly right. Nobody contacted me, despite being mentioned. It looks like Forich got interviewed, and for getting such Wikipedia-positive quotes, surely deserves an "I edit Wikipedia" t-shirt from WMF :-). -- Colin°Talk 07:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Great article. I wonder who these "socks" and "state actors" are. Could it be that Alexbrn is an MI6 sock covering up yet another foiled plot of the British royal family? Why was Prince Harry and his dad James Hewitt in Wuhan for the military games? What are they hiding? CutePeach (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

lol RandomCanadian, I believe CP was making what the kids are calling a "joke." --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Last foreign scientist

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1 TrangaBellam (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

An interesting source, even if I'm not sure what we'd use it for on this article. Good background context, though. I also added it to the misinformation article, since it included another description of threats related to misinformation. Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open

Latest comment: 3 years ago131 comments25 people in discussion

Pre-break

As a scientific researcher (not a virologist), I feel puzzled to understand the hurry that Wikipedia editors have in declaring the virus to have a zoonotic origin.

Partly, this phenomenon is fueled by the unexplainable hurry that Andersen et al., 2020 had in trying to defend the zootonic origin immediately in March 2020. Then, the dominant segments of the international community (including WHO), arguably and justifiably fearing that a man-made likelihood would ignite racial biases, released bold statements in defending such premature hypotheses of a natural origin.

However, recent investigations by multiple expert bodies raise several questions on the hypotheses by Andersen et al., 2020. Especially, the work based its judgement on a series of assumptions that to date are not validated despite considerable research efforts during the last year (e.g. traces of intermediate hosts, etc).

When we talk about the likelihood of an event, we should be aware of the axioms of probability. Following Bayesian principles, a prior probability (i.e. natural origin hypothesis) should be altered following new observations (i.e. deriving a posterior probability).

My question for the Wiki editors is: one year after the publication by Andersen et al., - are there any new supportive evidences to validate its assumptions, or - are there more evidences to the contrary, i.e. that sampled evidence does not validate its assumptions?

As the question was retorical (it is obvious that researchers have now more questions and doubts given new data), then, at least the article should also alter its pitch. E.g. in the tone: The origin of the virus was initially thought to be zoonotic, but further recent evidences fell short in validating the initial assumptions. As such, the true origin of the virus outbreak remains unknown and diverse investigations are either planned, or ongoing.

In addition, personally I feel the pitch of the current article is a bit childish in essense. Because the virus can be both zoonotic and released from a lab, e.g. one possible likelihood out of many: a researcher taking a sample from a bat violates the safety protocols and gets infected. In that sense, stating the origin as "either zoonotic or conspiracy" seems uncomprehensible. The article does not differentiate a core concept: the biological origin of the virus (hypothesis: a bat virus), from the origin of the outbreak independent on the origin of the virus (hypothesis: a natural bat virus accidentally infecting a lab staff in Wuhan).

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is all WP:OR. You can claim to be whoever you want, but here on Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Papers published in peer-reviewed journals by virologists and experts in infectious diseases seem to agree that the virus very likely has a zoonotic origin. We report that. That this happens not to be the point of view of some politicians and that it is being promoted unduly (by cherry-picking [circumstantial, at best] "evidence" to fit a conclusion: the anti-scientific method) is misinformation, and you appear to have fallen prey to it. Researchers asking for more thorough investigation (including to more thoroughly determine a likely zoonotic origin, ex. [2]) does not change that. In any case, we follow, not lead, the reliable sources, and so far I haven't found a single credible paper which argues for the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian Why did you revert the statement attributed to Biden, cited to Reuters? Your edit comment makes no sense in this context. It is relevant for the Biden Administration section that he has stated his national security staff does not believe there is sufficient information to assess one theory to be more likely than the other. It is not stated in wikivoice. Terjen (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Terjen: The problem is that while Biden's statement is notable (and I left it there), the reasons behind it make it so that too much text is being spend describing this. See WP:UNDUE, particularly the bit about WP:PROPORTION - we can mention the reports without giving them too much attention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian We can condense the sentence to reduce the text while restoring their attributed significant viewpoint that there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely. Terjen (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian Having addressed your concerns about spending too much text, I suggest reintroducing the sentence as "stating his national security staff says there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely." Terjen (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  Done Terjen (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, it appears we give this way too little weight given its coverage in WP:RS press. Terjen (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Terjen: The problem with that particular suggestion is that the popular press are reporting a (notable, but political) view which is very much at odds with that of the scientific literature, which is mostly giving short shrift to it. Hence we need to balance the coverage of science vs politics, and ideally not unduly report the view of politicians (who are not qualified to do such things) on scientific matters. We can mention the most significant events (objections to WHO report, letter in Science, Biden) without quoting them for opinions. Note that if we quote Biden saying that there's not enough evidence, we also need to quote scientists saying that the evidence we do have points to a natural origin entirely consistent with previous outbreaks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
We could follow with a viewpoint based on e.g. this NYT article on President Biden’s call for a more rigorous investigation, with scientists cautioning against expecting an answer in the three-month time frame, and although becoming more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus, still noting the lack of direct evidence for a lab leak. Terjen (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not really sure that you are fully aware of the scientific discourse regarding the origin of the virus. The world's top-most scientific authorities recently sent a letter to the Science Magazine (published May 2021, link https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1) asking for an investigation on the origin and stating that "Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.". The authors are leading scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge, Yale, including the world's most knowledgeable experts on coronaviruses, and Science is the ultimate scientific venue. Please explain to the readers, what do Wiki editors know better than the experts in the field, given that you jumped into the conclusion of a zoonotic origin? Because, there is NO consensus among the scientific community in 2021 on the origin, contrary to the initial beliefs in 2020. At the current shape, this article is pure POV, unless it is rewritten from scratch to balance its tone in the form of "The scientific community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus".
P.s.: The letter of the scientists is not an isolated opinion letter, but came as a consequence of several research papers questioning the virus' origin. For an instance: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240
2003:C0:6F31:7E57:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thought I'd point out this opposing essay, written in response to the one you've cited. [3] Bakkster Man (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A response to a scientific work is fine, and a healthy way of treating disagreements through scientific argumentation. What is not fine, is WP taking a side on the discussion (fanatically supporting the zoonotic version), while the experts have not reached a consensus. I assume there is no sane editor here, independent of his/her seniority that pretends to have the expertise of arguing against the 18 respected scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. (top-most authorities in the field) who leave the leak version on the table, and heavily criticize the WHO investigation as biased. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to step back and figure out which facets of this question we're discussing, because it's easy to talk past one another. If we're talking about 'fanatical support', specifically meaning going to the extent of stating there has been no meaningful science performed or rational reason to believe the lab leak is possible/likely, then we probably agree. If we're talking about whether the majority of scientists believe that the virus was most likely natural in origin (even if that turns out to be wrong), and whether such a significantly held majority opinion is notable even though inconclusive, then we might disagree.
One of my major concerns (in both directions) is not overstating people's actual opinions, by reading something else into them. We've seen it with the recent Fauci comments, we've seen it with the Tedros comments, and we seem to be seeing it now with Baric and the Science letter: “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife”.[4] I've found it better to discuss specifics, like what should actually change on the article, rather than broad strokes like "the Science letter is a monolithic opinion, the signers are the top in their field, and it was based on a particular paper in BioEssays" that don't appear to accurately reflect the sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The specifics would be: rephrase all sections where the zoonotic origin is qualified as being the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Change to a smoother pitch, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options." 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The paper by Deigin (from that Twitter group) and Segretto is about a view (possible "genetic manipulation", involving furin cleavage sites [present in many other natural viruses]) widely held to be discredited by most relevant experts (Deigin does not appear to have any valid scientific credentials in any case, and is aslo part of a Twitter group who've been actively promoting misinformation about the origin of COVID...). The paper in Bioessays is, as the journal name implies, an essay and not a review paper, so a rather weak source for an exceptional claim. In addition, the claim it makes, that of genetic manipulation, had already been ruled out before it was even published by Andersen et al. (an influential paper cited by more than 1400 fellow scientists), see this (written by three [micro-]biologists), which explicitly (like many other more recent sources, including the WHO report) states:

In a Nature Medicine study, Kristian Andersen et al. 18 categorically refute the idea that the virus has been engineered, based on the comparative analysis of coronavirus genomic data. [...] Other epidemiologists have also publicly discredited theories that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment, although it cannot be ruled out entirely, highlighted by the active discussion triggered by the Nature Medicine study on PubPeer 20 and elsewhere.

So, the "paper" you cite is not really a credible paper (as I was saying, "there are no credible papers") nor can it be cited to support anything but the opinions of its authors (since it is an essay), whose view is not significant enough and is already discredited anyway. As to the Science letter, you're not giving all of the context behind that one, either (some signatories, such as Baric, support a more thorough investigation [to make all this nonsense distraction stop?] while also agreeing that the origin is most likely zoonotic). Also, per the same FEBS paper I was just citing:

Whether the now-infamous seafood market is the site that ‘patient zero’ or the index case became infected remains inconclusively known, but the scientific consensus on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal.

This is also in agreement with many more recent reports in the press (scientific or popular), for example:
So I suggest you go read that (and look for scientific papers on PubMed, not Twitter) before arguing for false balance based on an extremely dubious paper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
In addition the whole thing about an "engineered" furin cleavage site (as promoted in that essay you cite) is bollocks, see Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Rarity_of_Furin_Cleavage_Site_is_inaccurately_described_here for some credible sources on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet several of those papers claiming the lab leak origin at not peer reviewed, plus their authors are known cranks who advocated against masks and vaccines. See here.--49.195.5.107 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect, the BioEssays journal is peer-reviewed. Personal allegations against scientists outside their technical work are not an argument we should seriously consider. Especially, given that the Science letter authors are the most respected scientific authorities in the field. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Reviewed or not, it's an essay which argues for a discredited position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

David Gorski has a look at the lab leak idea on Science-Based Medicine [5]. The start of the article is great:

whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises. That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories.

Read the whole article. This is how real experts handle that sort of stuff, and this is the attitude Wikipedia should take. Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ARSEHOLES - opinions are just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure “Here! Just use this relatively obscure blog!” is the appropriate response to this... Science-Based Medicine =/= science based medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
SBM isn't "obscure" AFAICS. Although, as I've said, we should use better sources if available (recognising that many of them do not waste their time with this shit). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thats why I said “relatively obscure.” I don’t mean to hate on them but its just a very odd response to say "Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions.” I don’t care how great Gorski is thats just not right and not how things are done here. I would also note that the vast majority of what Gorski writes on the blog is explicitly presented as his opinion, its just not on the same level as good peer reviewed work (whether it be by Gorski et al or anyone else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I broadly agree. He's presenting the skeptic's point of view, which is not necessarily the same as WP:NPOV or the majority's point of view. And, as I've suggested elsewhere, it can be viewed as being in opposition with the WHO study we have (as of late) cited as indicative of the majority view, not in agreement with it. At least, for the quote it's used for. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"From the very beginning, the general scientific hypothesis has been that, while it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, it’s far more likely that it had a natural origin." seems to be in broad agreement with the WHO report, at least as a conclusion. Of course, we have better sources than Gorski for that, and the rest goes better in the article about misinformation to debunk the misinformation, as I've said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Note that I didn't say it couldn't be used as a source which was WP:NPOV, only that the the two weren't so synonymous that we could pick any quote from the article and claim it was WP:NPOV. Notably the "in essence, a conspiracy theory" quote proposed at COVID-19 misinformation.
Otherwise, I think we agree: we have better sources than Gorski for that. We have good WP:SCHOLARSHIP to cite for most of our claims, and Gorski's debunking is most useful for the context surrounding the who/what/when/where/why of misinformation spread, leaving those strong MEDLINE secondary sources to describe what is actually misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
not how things are done here Actually, ignoring laymen's takes (Biden and Wade are laymen) when we have sources written by scientists working in the field the article is about is exactly how things are done here. Of course, if there are sources which are even better than Gorski, we should use those, but we should not use pieces written by people who are not professional medical scientists, since they are worse than Gorski. Science-Based Medicine is categorized as a reliable source in WP:RSP, and they are experts on medical fringe topics, which this is. Wade is just an expert on writing books the scientists he quotes in them disagree with, and Biden is just someone who was more popular than a <accurate but very unencyclopedic expletive deleted> last year. Why anyone would be interested in what they think on this subject is beyond me.
Also, Gorski analyzes exactly those sources that fervent lab-leak proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-plausible proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-not-fringe proponents and fervent fence-sitting proponents have been pushing here for weeks. What he writes is not just a soundbite, like an out-of-context Fauci quote some journalist decided to amplify. It is a thorough analysis of the most crucial sources on the lab leak idea, and that makes it better than the usual boring, shallow, superficial show-of-hands crap which will tell you only who likes the idea and who does not, and maybe how much they like or dislike it, but ignores the actual reasoning behind the positions. Quoting the reasoning will be useful to those readers who are smart enough to decide based on reasoning instead of just following or opposing whatever the majority says, following or opposing whatever the Republicans say, or whoever else, depending on one's taste.
The "it's just the skeptic POV" reasoning is a trope everybody who edits fringe articles knows well: "homeopathy does not work? that's just what the skeptics say!" Skeptics are just scientists who look at fringe ideas instead of ignoring them. Dismissing them because they can be pigeonholed as skeptics is just a red herring. Reliable source is reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that we are facing a couple of orthogonal arguments that overlap in the previous posts, which is a good indication of the complexity of the issue. The first reaction I see is avoiding the direct opinion of a large number of scientists that ask for a thorough investigation and state that a leak is a viable option. This reputation of these 18 leading scientists is in my understanding a clear argument in that "there is no clear consensus on the origin of the virus by the scientific community".
The second point I find problematic is trying to give a false sense of "a majority of scientists" supporting the zoonotic nature. The correct statement would be that "initially there were more scientists supporting the zoonotic option compared to those opposing it", however, we are referring to a very small minority of voices compared to the whole spectrum of relevant scientists in the world (few dozens of supporters, fewer opposers, and the absolute majority undeclared). What is interesting to see that the recent trend is for more opposers to raise their questions, given that the arguments of the supporters do not clearly hold as more data coming out.
The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak. Such a line of reason is flawed because we cannot have a team of virologists drawing conclusions on a potential leak from a lab without access to the site, analyzing local samples, etc., which China is denying access to. Raising questions is the most that doubters can do in the absence of an investigation.
The last point is trying to frame opposers, or doubters, as "discredited" individuals, fools, or crazy conspiracists. The ironic point is that such non-scientific personal allegations are done by the side which fanatically believes to be the "holder of ethics and truth". It is clear that the nervousness arises because the long-believed zoonotic "truth" is being seriously questioned in the last two months, by all stakeholders, scientists, activists, politicians, supranational organizations, etc.
The bottom line is: There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus, and to date very little is known on the exact details of the spread of the virus. Wikipedia should reflect this and not fanatically support a zoonotic origin, which unlike in 2020, does not anymore convince the scientific community in 2021.

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"large number of scientists" - 18 is not a "large number"; and that statement would also be inconsistent with the lack of scientific papers which view the lab leak favourably. "The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak." - yes, exactly, see WP:V and WP:VNT (and avoid your personal WP:OR criticism). "There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus" - outright wrong; again, see the cited sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Could you please share what is your personal threshold for the smallest number of top-scientists that qualify for your definition of a significant cohort? 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a "significant amount" of scientists who disagree with the consensus statement. That can only be done by presenting verifiable, peer-reviewed papers which show that this is actually seriously disputed within the scientific community, not by making WP:SYNTH as to what is a significant number (especially not when some of the signatories of that letter don't even agree that a lab leak is likely, ex. Baric). As I've said, all of the sources I have found say that the scientific consensus is a natural, zoonotic origin, as with previous CoVs. If this were truly disputed, it should be trivial for you to find credible sources in quality journals which put forward a contrasting view. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The 18 scientists among the most respected authorities in the field and the top institutions are in my understanding a "significant amount" of scientists. The letter co-signed by all of them states that "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.". As a result, either we deduce that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus, as these scientists explicitly claim; or we have to accept they are an irrelevant part of the scientific community (despite being top professors and researchers at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, etc.). As they further iterate "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". I see two options i. you and/or other editors apparently are more informed and knowledgeable than these top scientists and have done a better screening of the related publications, or ii. that the related work does not conclusively support your stance. In any case, it is of paramount importance to highlight the fact that the community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus. Attempts to shortcut a conclusion at WP are really hard to comprehend. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The alternative conclusions are that A) you are trying to take one (WP:PRIMARY) letter and use it to override all of the other sources on the topic; B) you are disregarding sources which don't fit with your narrative (for example, the documented reactions from some signatories saying that they believe a natural origin to still be the more likely hypothesis, and that their signing of the letter was more a call for further, more thorough investigations); C) you are not able to produce a WP:SECONDARY review paper which agrees with this assessment because it doesn't exist and D) you are full well aware of our policies against soapboxing, and you are doing it nonetheless. Since we, on Wikipedia, are biased, towards academic, peer reviewed litterature, and since you have failed to provide sources which disagree with the fact that a natural origin is still the scientific consensus, well then it is not possible to change the existing article text in that aspect. Again, it should be trivial, if they exist, for you to provide us a peer-reviewed review paper which makes clear that a lab leak is a serious hypothesis and not merely an "extremely unlikely but not ruled out yet" one. Failing that, you can go right back to other sites. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring all your personal allegations and moving to the point: Does this letter express the stance of a relevant segment of the scientific community? If yes, then why twist the fact that the scientific community has not reached a consensus? I do not deny the existence of opposing views and publications on all sides (admittedly few more peer-reviewed on the zoonotic side). However, opposing views are at the core of any disputed theory with no consensus and no evidence to support any version. I do not comprehend why should we give you more publications (although I actually gave one above), only because you do not fancy considering the explicit stance of 18 top scientists in the field as relevant. A significant fraction of the scientific community is not accepting the consensus on the zoonotic version anymore in 2021, as these top scientists *explicitly* stated in the Science letter. Should we reason a consensus by our personal and amateur analyses of virology publications, or agree to use directly the explicit statements of a relevant part of the scientific community which explicitly deny that a consensus on the zoonotic origin is reached. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Take a moment, and read all the previous comments, where the concerns about that letter (including it being a primary source, and so on so forth) are already addressed; and where reliable sources which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is are provided. I'm not going to reply further until your comments show evidence that you've actually done that, rather than being evidence that you're not listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have already read the above comments, but they do not directly target the point. You and other peers defended the zoonotic origin and cite papers supporting that stance. The existence of zoonotic supporters (scientists and editors) is not the dispute here. What we argue is whether there is only one view (zoonotic) that is shared by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, or whether there are two, or more. The science letter is a direct primary source by a fraction of the community that categorizes more than one option as viable. It is direct support for the argument that the community (by its own explicit declaration) has not reached a consensus. As it is evident that a consensus has not been reached, I propose rephrasing the article from a one-sided "zoonotic fan-club" pitch, to a more balanced and accurate tone, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options."

2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that there are not two competing views. What is argued is that one of these views falls under WP:FRINGE (i.e., it is a view which significantly departs from the consensus of experts within the relevant field). See this for more details and how we need to handle this. In short: politics = fine, can be mentioned, due to notability; science = care taken to not unduly legitimise a small minority opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Our disagreement is then rooted in your characterization of 18 top scientists as promoters of WP:FRINGE, by "supporting a view that departs from the consensus of the experts in the relevant field". However, WP:FRINGE is not applicable as there is no consensus in the first place, from which to depart. As these scientists define the notion of "field experts" by virtue of their prestige and expertise, then by definition they cannot depart from themselves. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@2003:C0 For what it's worth, I'm also a scientific researcher at a R1 university in the US, and the talk among my friends and colleagues (professors, research scientists, post docs, in a variety of scientific fields; very smart left-leaning people with PhD's, though no virologists) is that the lab leak is plausible. Some think lab leak is more likely, and some think zoonotic is more likely (I'm in the zoonotic camp, but barely). Lab leak is simply not a fringe idea anymore. RandomCanadian, you would be well-served to just go any science department at the nearest university and ask around; I think you would be surprised at what you hear. We see a dichotomy: scientifically minded laypeople tend to dismiss the lab leak because it was outside the overton window until recently, but actual scientists with PhD's are open to the idea, because they know the messy and uncertain way that science and the academic system works. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Then your friends propably also think it plausible that HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus were lab-leaked? It does not matter what your friends believe when they sit in their armchairs. It does not even matter what the people who actually look at the evidence and are actually competent to look at the evidence believe. Only the results of their investigations matter. The better the job they do, the less their beliefs will influence those results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No, professors and research scientists that I know do not find it plausible that those other viruses are lab leaked. They do find it plausible that SARS-COV2 was lab leaked. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
When your friends are finished strutting and boasting their perfectly ordinary and boring academic accomplishments which make them par with a few Wikipedia editors (or maybe it is you who is doing the boasting for them), you can tell them that as soon as they do actual science which shows that the lab leak is plausible, publish it in an academic journal, and get it accepted as mainstream, Wikipedia can use their results. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hob, I know you are doing your best to combat misinformation. That is an admirable goal. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding covid19, and there are a lot of obnoxious anti-science people who latched onto the lab leak theory for the wrong reasons. But you're on the wrong side on this one; currently the scientific consensus is that lab leak is a plausible hypothesis (not certain, not most likely, simply plausible). Now I'm sure you have all sorts of wikipedia policies to counter whatever I say, perhaps by redefining "scientific consensus" in some wikipedia legal manner, or playing games about which sources count in wikipedia and which don't. I'm not equipped to argue with you about this; surely you know more about wikipedia than me and would easily win. But I've been honest with everything I've said here so far. I ask you to take a moment and honestly think about your position in light of all of the new information that has come out over the last several months. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Except that's already what is in the article: the lab leak is possible, but deemed unlikely by scientists. I don't see what else needs to be changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You mentioned "all sorts of wikipedia policies", but you do not seem to understand that they are there for very good reasons. A scientist's opinion is always based not only on scientific expertise, but also on personal political, religious, and ideological motives and on what the media choose to tell them. Your IP address shows that you are in the US. At the moment, the US media are permanently firing against China, using the lab leak idea as a weapon. (As an aside, I despise authoritarian governments like the Chinese one, but the reasoning used against them should be sound.) So, how can you know that the reason your friends think like that is purely scientific and not influenced by the peculiar US parochialities? Do you know what scientists in other countries think? Scientists' opinions are simply not reliable enough as sources for Wikipedia. Remember, they are something that needs to be filtered out by scientific methods! That is why Wikipedia demands secondary scientific sources instead of just people who are equipped with academic grades, but get the same media-preselected information as everybody else, answering "what is your take on this" questions.
There is a consensus about anthropogenic global warming. I guess you heard the number 97% at some time. That was one of several studies looking into the question. It was determined not by asking scientists what they think, but by looking at what scientific studies said. This is how scientific consensus is determined. Also, this article is called Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and not Opinions on the origin of COVID-19.
We have good sources for "possible, but unlikely", but "plausible" is vague. Is something plausible if it is "possible, but unlikely"? Or does it need to be more than a distant possibility? You sounded as if you are using the second definition. The word "plausible" is not good enough to convey an exact meaning. So we will keep the "possible, but unlikely" wording, as RandomCanadian says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Your misunderstanding of that letter is still apparent. Supporting further investigations is not fringe. Using a letter, which some of the signatories said themselves is being used for misinformation by people promoting the lab leak, to argue that the lab leak is not "extremely unlikely", is misleading, AND fringe under the sense of the policy. As for your WP:OR of what constitutes consensus and what does not, it is irrelevant, since we do not allow original research. There are sources, from after that letter, given here, from reputable popular and scientific newspapers (Guardian, WaPo, Nature) which explicitly describe the current position as that of a consensus. That you think it isn't one, is, as I have said, irrelevant, since per WP:NPOV, only the opinions of sources matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
We have reliable sources backing that some influential scientists have found the WHO-China report's dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis difficult to accept and have become more willing to voice an undecided position on the origin of the virus. Such as this recent article by Carl Zimmer in New York Times. Terjen (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That brings us back to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SCIRS (or MEDRS, nearly same thing) and the description given at WP:MEDFAQ ("Why can't I use articles from the popular press?" - replace medical with "scientific" or "biomedical" and the same concerns still apply). There is a tension between academic sources and the popular press. How we deal with that is a difficult question, but policy suggests we should give precedence to academic sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
In this case, it's not really a concern that readers may make incorrect medical decisions based on scientists' assessment of the origin of the virus. New York Times science journalist Carl Zimmer is well qualified to take the pulse on the scientific community. Terjen (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
MEDRS sources (in this case, review articles in high-quality journals) are what are needed to determine the scientific consensus. There's no reason to put popular press articles above MEDRS sources, particularly when the popular press is expressing views that are explicitly contradicted by the highest-quality MEDRS sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please submit your strongest WP:MEDRS source that as required by WP:RS/AC directly says there is a scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
There are many sources which say that explicitly. The strongest source among those already identified (I haven't found anything so far which contradicts this) would be the article in Nature by Maxmen et al. (a reputable scientific publisher). The alternative would be asking us to prove a negative (that there are no papers which dispute this). Alternatively, we can also make clearer the distinction between scientists and politicians (as reported here - interesting read). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hold on: The Maxmen article in Nature does not directly say there is a scientific consensus, as required by WP:RS/AC. It mentions consensus twice, but these refer to consensus in strategies for health management and consensus among powerful countries. For us to state there is a scientific consensus, it should be trivial to provide solid articles explicitly stating it. If not, we shouldn't be among the first to make the claim. Terjen (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
A sampling:
  • a few scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses... Most researchers agree that bats or pangolins are the primary reservoirs of coronaviruses, but the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 to humans from this primary reservoir is still under study [6]
  • All human CoVs have zoonotic origin and are capable of transmission among mammalian hosts; however, most CoVs originate in bats and are transmitted to humans through domestic animals (Forni et al., 2016; Su et al., 2016). Thus, bats are considered the natural host and primary reservoir of human CoVs (Cui et al., 2019). [7]
Worth noting, it appears that most sources simply leave the possibility of a lab origin unmentioned unless specifically countering such claims, suggesting such claims of majority perspective are accurate (as WP:RS/AC suggests). I'd be interested if a similarly strong source contradicting the claim that those favoring the lab hypothesis as likely (not merely 'viable' or 'possible') were a minority could be found. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no mention of consensus in the samples. Per WP:RS/AC "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Terjen (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If we interpret that to mean the source must say the word 'consensus' explicitly, then I'm not opposed to "most"/"few". Bakkster Man (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

reply to the preceding comment by Terjen
Conspiracy theories and speculations about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not quite as innocent as they might seem. In addition to fuelling existing political tensions and racist bigotry, the active promotion of the lab leak by some "aggressive proponents" has lead to the bullying of scientists (including the creation of attack pages, subsequently speedily deleted, here!) and to more difficulties in collaborations (already difficult) with Chinese ones... We ought not to give these people more credence than what they have in academic sources. The article by Zimmer, nevertheless, also makes clear (in it's header, at that) that while scientists support more thorough investigations (which kind of scientist would not?), they also still agree that "the so-called lab leak theory is unlikely". So, we have multiple sources, from a broad spectrum (newspapers to WP:PRIMARY letters to WP:SECONDARY reviews to in-depth investigations like that by the WHO) saying that scientists A) support investigations (the WHO report also supports this!) [not necessarily related to the lab leak, see for ex. [8]) but B) do not consider the lab leak to be likely. I don't know what more we need to make an accurate article which satisfies NPOV - scientists agree that the matter needs further investigation, but that a lab leak is not a likely scenario (hence, it is still fundamentally at odds with the prevailing view within the scientific community - as evidenced by the quotes from many scientists - so gets treated under WP:FRINGE (which is a broader definition than that of the regular meaning of the word "fringe")). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The intention of WP:Fringe is to avoid that Wikipedia becomes the validating source for non-significant subjects or a forum for original research, which doesn't restrict us from representing other significant views than what some may consider the "prevailing" one. The Carl Zimmer article substantiates undecided as a significant viewpoint among scientists: "After long steering clear of the debate, some influential scientists have lately become more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus. If the two most vocal poles of the argument are natural spillover vs. laboratory leak, these new voices have added a third point of view: a resounding undecided." The article documents a range of views rather than a consensus, including quoting Yale immunologist Akiko Iwasaki stating "There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup." Terjen (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You are proposing to ignore a perspective supported clearly by a significant segment of the scientific community by an explicit letter, and instead propagate a consensus stance, only because it serves a subjectively perceived social good. However, advocating anti-fringe for the sake of a social justice warrior's agenda is not in line with scientific rigors of truth above all. It is very evident and well supported that the community has no consensus on the origin of the virus. Automated dry replies of the form "No, that is not true.", ignoring the explicit content of a letter by 18 top scientists do not help this dicussion. Furthermore, you are misreading the letter at Science, which explicitly states that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". On the contrary, you imply that the letter states a leak is extremely unlikely, which in my reading of the letter is incorrect.
2003:C0:6F31:7E13:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You, on the other hand, look like exactly all of the other lab-leak SPAs, and you are also engaging in WP:OR by interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source (the letter). WP:PRIMARY explicitly says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, and these say that 1) the scientific consensus is still "natural origin" - sources already provided above - and 2) that the letter is being misused by aggressive proponents of the lab leak (such as you and your Twitter friends) - quote: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas.". In addition, many note that all of this diplomatic finger-pointing is needless distraction from the actual problem, which is dealing with the virus right here right now (where it came from is actually a purely "academic" debate now - it won't help with fighting it), preventing future zoonotic viral outbreaks (these happen all the time. Recent example: Influenza A virus subtype H10N3), and improving biosecurity rules - all measures which require collaboration. Reliably sourced statements from high-quality secondary sources, and not selective context-less reading of primary sources, is what is required. Until you've demonstrated a willingness to look for better sources and stop engaging in WP:OR, I'm not going to feed into your feedback loop (nor tolerate your ad hominems - calling my a "social justice warrior" implies a lot more things about you than you might think). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I never supported the lab leak theory in any of my statements or comments (although supporting it is as honorable as opposing it IMHO, as long as it serves the truth), I just insisted that scientists believe it to be a viable hypothesis. However, your expressed opposition to one side of the argument makes you biased and unqualified to treat this topic impartially. I find the remaining personal insults unworthy of any further consideration.
Instead, I have the right to demand (sadly not from you anymore) that the truth about the scientific community's lack of consensus be reflected in this article. The sources on the divide of the scientific opinions are crystal clear. Demanding more sources is pure idiocy and POV. By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Please accept it and save our precious time. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Which viewpoint do you believe is being disagreed with by the letter, and where in the letter was it expressed? The value and necessity of meaningful investigation, the likelihood of the multiple unconfirmed possibilities, or both? On a related note, have you considered creating an account? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify my point: There is no consensus in ruling out a lab leak as a fringe theory, or as an extremely unlikely hypothesis that is discredited by scientists. For a segment of the scientific community, it is a viable hypothesis that deserves serious consideration and consequently further investigation. In contrast, the current article version in a bold manner gives the impression of the leak as a discredited fringe theory with no support in terms of its viability from serious scientists.
The letter is not very long (4 paragraphs) and can be read in the blink of an eye [1]
P.s.: I deleted an account years ago when WP started to be time-consuming :( This intervention broke my self-oath of not interfering, to the bad luck of RandomCanadian ;) 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, then please create a new one, it is simple and it helps communication and warnings to be issued. Forich (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, when I'm referring to the lab leak being 'fringe', I'm referring to WP:FRINGE/ALT. This doesn't mean it's ruled out, only that it's adherents are a minority. And when I say adherents, I mean those who believe the lab origin is not merely possible, but likely. And not even all the signers of the Science letter even fit that definition of an 'adherent', as Ralph Baric signed specifically regarding the thoroughness of investigation: Baric had also signed Relman’s letter in Science, but he told me that his concerns had been with the W.H.O.’s failure to conduct a thorough, transparent review of biosafety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife,” he said.[9]
Of course, that distinction is difficult to get right and make clear. I do think the article is better now than it was a few months ago, but that doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement. But the first question is, do we agree that belief that the lab leak origin is a likely origin is a minority opinion among scientists? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That the lab leak origin is a viable and serious hypothesis is an explicit stance by a "segment" of the scientific community. Whether this "segment" represents the majority, or the minority of "opinions" is for me hard to assess. In particular, as a serious on-site investigation has not been conducted, the lack of empirical evidence in support of the original zoonotic hypothesis (e.g. the failure of finding any intermediate host carrying the exact SARS-COV-2 genetic information despite tens of thousands of sampled animals, etc.) is making the number of doubters increase on a daily basis. My very personal assessment is that while in 2020 most scientists assumed the virus has a natural origin, in 2021 a critical mass of scientists apparently has doubts. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
We agree on "viable and serious", so all we disagree on is whether the article as written current does that. If you compare to the start of the year, I'd argue we do a much better job of that (in part because, at the time, it wasn't agreed that an accidental lab leak was "viable and serious"). So now it's the tough job of assessing the sources to verify what we're writing is credible. Like you said, while it's hard to assess prevalence, most credible sources say the opinion that natural origin is more likely is the majority. If that changes, then we will change (like when the WHO published their report giving "viable and serious" investigation into an accidental lab leak).
I'd like to propose an alternate explanation of the change we're seeing publicly in statements. It may not be an increase in 'doubters' of a natural origin, and instead because there's no longer an implied connection to the loudest, most conspiratorial voices in the room (ie. Trump) that had a chilling effect last year. The NYT found some who felt that way: Some scientists attributed the shift in part to the fact that the more extreme proponents of a lab leak hypothesis, like Mr. Navarro, had drowned out the more measured discussions of how lab workers could have accidentally carried the virus outside. And like anything, we need to be able to source it reliably. So the same as I wouldn't ascribe that motivation to all the people speaking out, we also can't ascribe it to failure to find the animal source. Not without a source. Hope that helps clarify things, and let me know if you have any specific items you think could be improved (supported by sources). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't "interpret" consensus. We "report" what reliable, secondary sources say and what they say about consensus. Recent scientific papers and newspapers, as cited multiple times above, note that the scientific consensus is still a zoonotic origin. Hence we report that, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, while leaving a minor mention of alternative scenarios, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. End of. The only arguing that should be there is about the credibility of sources and how to accurately represent the subject based on the credible sources. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
On a lighter note, RandomCanadian sounds like he would watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island.  :) On a serious note, we are witnessing an interesting case in which the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary. It is a rare turning of events because normally scientists will say "taking cofee is correlated to health metrics in this tiny sample of people" and news sources will say "Scientists find that consuming cofee extends life". Forich (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island. Not necessarily problematic, so long as it's reliably sourced and we update if/when the majority opinion changes. Exactly what WP:FRINGE/ALT says, btw: should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. ;)
Maybe reframing things away from 'scientific consensus' to 'mainstream perspective' will be more palatable, at least for some. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:RS/AC is very clear on this: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Editors' determination that the majority opinion is X, in the absence of sources directly saying "the majority opinion is X", constitutes WP:OR. Stonkaments (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary By using the word "overstate", you are saying that your own opinion is in between. Put more neutrally and taking you out of the picture: the scientific sources are more confident about the zoonotic origin than the news sources. Wikipedia editors can think what they want, but Wikipedia articles take the position of the more reliable sources. They do not reflect the position of the editors who happen to write the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC? Terjen (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This states it directly, as quoted above. There are then reliable newspapers which echo this. If I look through enough academic papers I might find some which make this statement too (but that's a time consuming exercise), but many of them simply don't mention anything but a natural origin scenario so this makes me think of the scenario at WP:FRINGELEVEL where "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." and also WP:FALSEBALANCE ("plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The provided source is from June 2020, while the letter of the 18 renowned scientists, stating that the leak is a viable and serious hypothesis, was released on May 2021. How can a one-year old publication be used as a proof of consensus, while there exist an explicit consensus-disrupting declaration that is less than 1 month old? 2003:C0:6F22:6318:4DC0:7EF:B535:FEB6 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we look at removing the term "conspiracy theory" from this article? Saying this implies that some avenues of investigation are inappropriate. Valid hypotheses should treated with more respect. 2601:844:4000:F910:E8E4:1C40:DCB:D45A (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You've been given sources, recent ones at that (in addition to scientific papers), which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is, and some which also explicitly state that some theories, such as the claims the virus is man-made, are conspiracy theories. You are not allowed to interpret primary sources to claim that there is no such thing, per WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. The only references to "conspiracy theory" I see in this article are:
  1. "A number of conspiracy theories have also been promoted about the origins of the virus.[17][20][21]"
  2. "Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions,[46] the origin is still hotly debated,[47] and, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China,[48] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[49] Other conspiracy theories promoted misinformation that the virus is not communicable or was created to profit from new vaccines.[50]"
Both of these seem correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The consensus claimed by a paper in 2020 does not imply that there is still a consensus in 2021, by pretending that nothing has changed in the scientific opinion between 2020 and 2021. The correct formulation would be that "Until June 2020, existing sources indicated a consensus on the zoonotic origin of the virus among the scientific community. In contrast, recent declarations in 2021 by leading field scientists consider a lab leak to be a viable and serious hypothesis." 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The page does not refer to the possibility of an inadvertent lab leak as a conspiracy. I've cleaned up the one paragraph from 'bio-engineering' to 'bio weapon' specifically to ensure that this is accurately reflected and can't be confused. The conspiracy theories the article refers to (Winnipeg Lab source, biological weapon, non-communicable, designed to sell vaccines) are not the "viable and serious hypothesis" you're referring to. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The paper titled "COVID-19 breakthroughs: separating fact from fiction" published 5 June 2020 in the FEBS Journal was proclaimed offered by RandomCanadian in response to a request for the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus. It explicitly states "the scientific consensus on the origin is SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal" but also that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment "cannot be ruled out entirely." Unfortunately, reviewing research related to the origin of the virus is not a primary focus of the paper, but limited to a single section and only a few sources. Instead, the paper discusses a range of topics such as using Ibuprofen to manage symptoms, the protective role of nicotine, whether SARS-CoV-2 linger on surfaces, the effect on ethnic minorities, impact on children, and variation in mortality rate. Is this paper really the best we have to substantiate a scientific consensus? Terjen (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Terjen: I never said it was the strongest, I said it was one source among many, and I've also given many recent newspapers which confirm this. Quote-mining scientific papers isn't my forte, and it's a time consuming process. However, in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one, personal interpretations of primary sources to the contrary notwithstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You responded with this paper upon my request for the strongest WP:RS. If there is a consensus among scientists, it should be trivial to substantiate it. Terjen (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Re "in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one." No, if we only have weak sources suggesting there is a consensus, we're free to ignore them and avoid making claims about a consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the Guardian, NYT, or Nature or scientific journals, "weak sources". WP:FRINGELEVEL says that if scientific sources ignore an hypothesis, it's likely that it isn't the prevalent one. This, very recent paper, in Lancet Resp Med, has "The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer." This is entirely consistent with the lab leak being a fringe theory, as per the sources (in the post just below) which explicitly say that there is a scientific consensus. If you disagree, start a bloody RfC so we can get stop talking past each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
My primary concern is not the lab-leak hypothesis, but that we shouldn't present the origin question as settled science. However, regarding WP:FRINGELEVEL saying that if scientific sources ignore a hypothesis it may be excluded, even the article you offered upon my request for the strongest WP:RS doesn't ignore the lab-leak hypothesis, but states that it "cannot be ruled out entirely." Terjen (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, final reply about the IP's OR definition of "consensus". Free to look at these, recent sources, which say it explicitly:
There are others, recent and older, which show that despite the politics this hasn't changed at all in the scientific community. In any case, consider this a final warning about engaging in WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty sentimental threats in the absence of arguments, cannot stop anyone from asking the truth to be written impartially. As I repeated multiple times, there is no ultimate consensus on the origin of the virus among the scientific community, because the finest members of the research community (18 elite-most scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale, etc.) have recently openly declared (see cited Science letter) that both a leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable hypotheses. Citing outdated publications from 2020, or random collections of opinion articles at newspapers as a proxy of an alleged consensus, cannot overrule the explicit declaration of scientists themselves. Imagining a consensus of a scientific community, against the explicit declaration of the most important elitary segment of this very same community makes no sense. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to join this rather spirited discussion -- but I must say that you seem to be reading what you want to read in that Science letter (which offers opinion only, no evidence). In actual published data, scientists have been saying the same thing all along -- that all evidence to date indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated, and the notion that the pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident is not necessary to explain the pandemic. The media, on the other hand, have followed the opinion pendulum back and forth, from logic to fringe and back again. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment DoctorJoeE and sorry for having to witness emotionally loaded comments. I agree with you that a significant segment of the scientific community has actually expressed opinions, or published articles in favor of a zoonotic origin of the virus. What we disagree is on whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. The letter I cited explicitly state that both hypotheses, zoonotic or lab leak, are viable hypotheses that should be taken seriously and investigated. As a result, the question is whether this explicit declaration of an important segment of the research community, make the consensus argument still hold (i.e. can a community have a consensus if its most notable members publicly disagree)? Why is this important at all: because if a scientific consensus on a zoonotic origin does not exist and the lab leak is now considered as a viable hypothesis (hypothesis means an open option, as long as we know more), it should not be treated at this article as a fringe and discredited theory with links to conspiracy. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even bother to correctly reproduce what the article is saying? It does not say, and did not when you wrote the above, that the lab leak idea is "not viable", it says it is "extremely unlikely". When something is not viable, it cannot be extremely unlikely at the same time, only impossible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Are we referring to the same letter[2]. Citing "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." and "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". You are misreading the letter, in the section you refer to the authors criticize the WHO report that deduced a leak as "extremely unlikely" without a thorough consideration. I think you owe me an apology for jumping into aggressive language, instead of investing 60 more seconds to read the letter. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess you are talking to me and not to the other IP, and I guess you are the same person as the other IP. Therefore I added one more colon to your indentation to make that clearer.
I was not talking about any letter, I was talking about "the article". By which I mean the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, the Talk page of which we are on. You could have inferred this from the fact that I said "the article" and not "the letter". You had written whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. So, you claimed that the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 said that the zoonotic origin is the only viable hypothesis, didn't you? I explained to you that it does not, and you can check if by clicking on the link Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and searching for the word "viable". Now you are talking about some "letter" I was supposed to have been talking about. Well, I wasn't. In case you still have not got it, I was talking about the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I implied the Science article, i.e. the letter, assuming that the context was derivable from the previous thread exchanges but sorry about the confusion in case you read only my latest comment in isolation. In that case, unless you have any point against my summarization of the letter, then I believe your concern is addressed. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Still does not make any sense. Is there anybody who says "there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis"? The letter doesn't, the Wikipedia article doesn't. None of the editors here does. But you claim that there is disagreement about this question. Where do you get that? The lab leak has always been considered viable, but extremely unlikely, by the consensus. That is still the case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
See this ANI thread for further action. @DoctorJoeE: Your sum-up seems about almost an indirect quote of thie first paper I list here, "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello; I've been lurking here for a while and find the discussion on consensus interesting, so I decided to create an account. I wanted to note that there have been two very recent articles that explicitly address this, (both from today). As a quote from a prominent scientist: '“We can’t even begin to talk about a consensus other than a consensus that we don’t know,” said David Relman, a Stanford University microbiologist. “We have nothing like the amount of data we need.”' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-bats-china-wuhan/2021/06/02/772ef984-beb2-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html And as a take-away 'The scientific consensus had been smashed to smithereens.' https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins Sorry about the formatting. Chvko (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Welcome, Chvko! The two relevant quotes (as I see them) from those two articles are as follows:
WaPo: Many scientists say the most likely path is that the virus spread in nature and jumped from animals to humans. But that belief is largely based on how other coronaviruses have originated, not what is known about this case.
VF: There are reasons to doubt the lab-leak hypothesis. There is a long, well-documented history of natural spillovers leading to outbreaks, even when the initial and intermediate host animals have remained a mystery for months and years, and some expert virologists say the supposed oddities of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence have been found in nature.
These aren't the only sources making such evaluations, of course, but it helps to include them here for ease of discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe the most relevant quotes are the ones that Chvko highlighted (welcome!). That is two more solid sources disputing the existence of any scientific consensus at present. The Vanity Fair article also provides additional context for how problematic the notion of scientific consensus has become in this politicized debate: In April 2021, in an editorial in the journal Infectious Diseases & Immunity, Shi resorted to a familiar tactic to contain the cloud of suspicion enveloping her: She invoked scientific consensus, just as the Lancet statement had. Stonkaments (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A big source of confusion is that the word "origin" is an umbrella term. If we break down its components, one can arrange them in order of how fast evidence comes up regarding it, after an epidemic. This is more or less the order:

  1. The causative agent is discovered
  2. The index case is epidemiologically traced
  3. A likely reservoir is discovered by genomic analysis
  4. A likely evolutionary history is reconstructed from molecular genetic analyses
  5. The intermediate host is discovered
  6. The actual animal that hosts the inmediate virus ancestor of the virus is found in the wild

The word consensus can be safely applied to parts 1-3 above. Lots of uncertainty remain for part 4. Parts 5 and 6 are total mysteries, still. But this is normal in most epidemics. What word best summarizes the whole origin? I do not know. Forich (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the content of the article is confusing because the title refers to the "origin of COVID-19" and the first sentence states the "origin of SARS-CoV-2", which in my understanding are orthogonal concepts: the former questions "how was the first human infected?" and the second "how did the virus evolve?". If such orthogonal questions are raised, even opposing hypotheses can funnily co-exist, e.g. the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be a natural evolution, while the origin of COVID-19 can be a lab leak from that natural virus? This highlights the need for editing the article from multiple angles. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:3D8B:135E:DBC:48EA (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Forich: 2. The index case is epidemiologically traced Is it actually the case that there is consensus on this? I was under the impression that one of the major reasons why we don't have a clear resolution to resolve the lab question is the lack of a definitive index case. From the article: The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. This doesn't mean particular details can't be evaluated for likelihood or ruled out, but I think it's worthwhile to confirm that there is not yet an index case identified. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, 1. is obvious; 2 is not solved yet and likely won't be for a while; there is a rather clear consensus for 3 (likely reservoir = bats); I'm seeing papers about 4 ([10][11][12], so I guess that is also pretty much consensus. So that leaves 5-6. 6 took 14 years for SARS-CoV... Anyway, my two cents is that there will likely be some more time before we get a definitive answer on this, so likely we'll be dealing with disruption related to this, for a while... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with RandomCanadian, but since the pangolin evidence was found to have holes I would be cautious in calling it consensus. This is my best effort to summarize part 4: According to the WHO report, one of these reconstructed steps was that RaTG13 was found to have 96.2% genetic similarity with SARS-CoV-2. However, they qualify that by saying "Although SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to RaTG13, only one of the six critical amino acids sites [in the RBD of the S protein] is identical between the two viruses. A second step was that pangolin viruses were found to have some of the parts needed to complete the evolution, but the WHO summarizes the results from this line as inconclusive by saying "Although some researchers thought these observations [similar amino acids to the RBDs of pangolins] served as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in the recombination of a virus similar to pangolin-CoV with one similar to RaTG13, others argued that the identical functional sites in SARS-CoV-2 and pangolin-CoV-GDC may actually result from coincidental convergent evolution". Andersen summarized the advances on the reconstruction of the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, in this tweet: "The 'natural' version of this actually has a lot of evidence to it by now - we continue to see more and more of the pieces that make up the puzzle of SARS-CoV-2's evolutionary origin. The problem is - it's a big puzzle.". If the puzzle is big and the main reconstructed steps have not been conclusive determined, we should be cautios to say that a lot of progress has been made on this front, in my opinion.. Forich (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man:, good point. I used index case as the first identified patient, which is well-known who he is (dec 8 case according to WHO, or Dec 1 according to primary sources). As far as we know, he is the most likely candidate to have been infected by the animal source. On your point I've seen molecular clock studies that use a "root" case, which is previous than the index case. That would be what you are thinking, in case of a single introduction point, and tracing the clock of the variability observed in december, it is hypothetized that the index case from Dec 8 does not coincide with the root case, which probably happened late November 2019 or a few days earlier. That root would still be unknown, and therefore you are absolutely right. Forich (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Forich: You're right, index case just means first identified in a given population. That could be the first human ever, or just the first for a given localized cluster. But I think we agree, in this case we're talking about the global 'root' case, not just the currently identified Wuhan index case. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I see we are currently having edit wars over the use of the word consensus. Please read a related discussion on [[13]] for further insights. My proposal is to agree that:

  1. There is consensus on these aspects of the umbrella term "origin": i) The causative agent of COVID-19; ii) The Wuhan index case; iii) The likely reservoir suggested by genomic analysis
  2. There is not consensus on these aspects: iv) The likely evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses; v) The intermediate host; vi) The animal that acts as reservoir to hosts the inmediate virus ancestor actually caught in the wild by zoologists.

Pinging the editors involved with a call to calm down the war: @Shibbolethink:, @Adoring nanny:, @CutePeach:

Aspects v) and vi) from the list above should not be realisticly expected to have a consensus soon. So we should be aware that having uncertainty on them doesn't undermine the possibility of having an overall consensus on the umbrella term "origin". Forich (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm very interested in using BRD in this, and not edit warring. That's why we have ongoing discussions about this on this very talk page! But I think your point 2 is a non-sequitur. We don't need all virologists to agree on those things to say "the consensus among virologists is that a zoonotic origin is more likely." We just need sources showing a consensus is that the zoonosis is more likely. And we have that, as shown here and elsewhere.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
So, to be very specific about the wording to use in relation to the evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses, please bring the most reliable sources (MEDRS and Primary research only, no news sources) that summarize our current state of understanding. Let's keep it short and use at most three (3) sources. Forich (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with your point 1 section ii -- We do not have consensus in the scientific community about that index case. That is just the earliest case we have. No reason to believe the virus actually emerged in Wuhan at this point, or that this man in November was the first infected. Could have been Hubei province. Could have been Yunan. And our molecular clock analyses show that it could have been mid-October. As I go into extreme depth about in your linked thread! And as I recently added to WP:LABLEAK.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Yo do realize that your observation that there is no consensus on the index case goes against your proposal to state that "there is consensus on origin"? I am confused on why you bring this, but I appreaciate your honesty in being objective. Forich (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: I stand by my point 2, which really boils down to lacking consensus on the likely molecular history from ancestor to SARS-CoV-2. The other aspects of finding the animals in the wild should not be of concern to reach the word consensus. Your point that scientists use words that suggests consensus, and using them near the word "origin" lacks context. In some of those papers, they use origin to refer to the disease, in other to the pandemic, in others to the animal source, in others to the place of the initial outbreak, etc. I am sure I can pick apart any mention you bring of the word origin in top sources, to its contextual specific meaning. If we are going to use it loosely, as in the lead, I stand that having a precise summary of the molecular studies of the evolutionary history is the missing piece of the puzzle that can tilt our language to consensus. If we can not prove that that literature has settled on a likely origin, I strongly oppose that we say "there is consensus on origin". Forich (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any specific policy or source-based points to argue against the very well-written and extensively researched WP:NOLABLEAK? Or the many similar arguments made on this page? We are approaching WP:SATISFY territory with the amount of times this has been brought up without any new actual points or evidence. Because even after my own pre-wiki assessment of the landscape of scientific writing, reading that essay is what lead me to believe the "wikipedia-relevant" policy-interpretation would be that the MEDRS consensus is "zoonosis is more likely" even though the accidental lab leak is "possible." And so we must follow WP:RSUW and talk about the "zoonosis is more likely" a lot and the "lab leak is possible" a little. Which is what we do, I'm happy about the state of this article because of that. It's proportional WP:DUE weight.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink:, you say We do not have consensus in the scientific community about that index case. Be aware that index case, by defintion, is whatever person we know to have been infected first, a fact that is always certain. You seem to refer to the root of the initial outbreak, the person that according to the molecular clocks, should be the real index case. We agree that we have no consensus on the root of the initial outbreak. Can you elaborate on why lacking consensus about it can be bothersome for the overall understanding of the origin? My honest take on it is that it is unimportant whether the index case is the Dec 8 case from the WHO report, or someone else two approximately three weeks before that. The real root case, if it is not too far away (in time and place) from the index case can be dismissed as small nuisance, IMHO. Forich (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you may be confused about what I'm saying in that comment. That december 8 person is not even the earliest infection recorded anymore, although he may still be the earliest "confirmed" infection, I haven't checked in a few days. We want to avoid a Gaetan Dugas situation, most of all, prematurely calling someone an index case in the absence of more evidence. Here's what I'm concerned you may be doing (tell me if I'm wrong). It appears as though the argument you're forming is that since there are elements of the origin that have no consensus at this point (index, location, etc), that means that we cannot have a consensus about the zoonosis being the most likely scenario. But this is not a fair analysis. E.g. one can be reasonably sure that a large outbreak of food poisoning came from the Golden Corral on the corner of Main st. and Washington ave. without knowing whether it was the egg salad or the coleslaw to blame. This ambiguity and issue is why following WP:MEDRS is key here. We follow what the sources tell us, not our own original research. It's not our place to start playing epidemiologist here. Tell me if I'm misreading. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, just wanted to say, the SARS-1 zoonosis event occurred very far away from the city where most early infections occurred At least 1,200 kilometers away, I believe quite a bit more. Similar travel between rural and urban settings occurred with several Ebola outbreaks and MERS outbreaks. See the sections in WP:NOLABLEAK marked "Wuhan was likely not the origin" and "Viruses typically cross over rurally, then are first detected in cities". SO it is still very viable that the actual "patient zero" was infected pretty far geographically from Wuhan.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a second commentary that, if true, would constitute push back against the "there is consensus" on the origin, which I thought you were supporting. I am confused, but thanks for being careful to add comments from all sides, even if they counter your own point Forich (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify the point on context. Suppose a paper that has H0: zoonotic origin and Ha: human origin in the context of having diseases emerging from animals, versus being circulating in the species without being recognized (as occurred with hepatitis C). If it says "zoonotic origin is more likely" it has a specific meaning in relation to Ha. Now suppose a second paper has Ha: 100% synthetic virus. The same words "zoonotic origin is more likely" has different connotations. A third paper can be about the animal source of the initial outbreak in Wuhan, and it can have: H0: zoonotic animal source, vs Ha: the source was another human that brought the disease to the market. The same words "zoonotic origin is more likely" mean different things in this third paper.Forich (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
And do you have any evidence that this is what has occurred over at WP:NOLABLEAK? From my re-read just now, I believe the context in those sources is appropriate for how they're being used.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem to want my opinion on this specific framing:
  • H0: zoonotic origin
  • Ha: the virus started in an animal, at some point downstream it was manipulated in a lab by humans, then at some point later it somehow got to infect the Dec 8 index case in Wuhan
For this specific framing, I oppose saying we have consensus on "zoonotic origin is more likely". I can change my mind if you bring a specific source that says otherwise, of course. Forich (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
My opinion on the WP:NOLABLEAK essay is this one. I am prepared to comment on every source mentioned there, you want me to do it for any specific one? Isn't its talk page a more apt place to have that discussion. If I have time, I'll do it there and bring the link here. Forich (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In response to @Shibbolethink:'s commentary above (We follow what the sources tell us, not our own original research. It's not our place to start playing epidemiologist here. Tell me if I'm misreading.) that the standard you are proposing regarding the use of phrases taken out of context may lead to pointy edits that favor the lab leak hypothesis, such as using papers that speak of the Furin Cleavage Site being "inserted" or the virus having "escaped" in papers talking about a particular property of viruses regarding vaccination or treatments. I erroneusly did one edit like that myself (I apologize) to prove the point, but now I realize it was semi-vandalic and the crux of the point can be made here at the talk page in a less rude way. Forich (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To avoid this getting unproductive or circular, I'll repeat my proposal:
To be very specific about the wording to use in relation to the evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses, please bring the most reliable sources (MEDRS and Primary research only, no news sources) that summarize our current state of understanding. Let's keep it short and use at most three (3) sources. Forich (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:

This appears high on a Google Scholar search with keywords "SARS-Cov-2 evolution*":

Despite these recent discoveries, several fundamental issues related to the evolutionary patterns and driving forces behind this outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 remain to be fully characterized[3]
In the meantime of this discussion, I want to bring here the wording use by the New York Times in a recent piece: "having jumped from animals to humans, the explanation favored by most experts on coronaviruses." [4]. It is simple and I have no problems if we borrow it to the lead of this article. It is similar to the compromise proposed here (see last part of diff

, but without the "vast majority" part and withouth the too-general "origin" word. Anyone disagrees? Forich (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The quote you give only says that "several issues remain to be fully characterized". Yes, there are plenty of unresolved questions, but that doesn't mean there isn't consensus on some aspects. I also don't understand why you're using a paper from June last year for this and then also don't accept statements from June last year that there is consensus (or even more recent papers that say the same thing). For context, the paragraph preceding that quote begins "Coronaviruses are naturally hosted and evolutionarily shaped by bats [4,5]. Indeed, it has been postulated that most of the coronaviruses in humans are derived from the bat reservoir [6,7]." and then continues "Although the specific route of transmission from natural reservoirs to humans remains unclear [5,13], several studies have shown that pangolins may have provided a partial spike gene to SARS-CoV-2; the critical functional sites in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are nearly identical to those identified in a virus isolated from a pangolin [16–18]." That also indicates this particular paper might be a bit dated on this aspect since there are doubts about the links of pangolins to this. In any case, it's clear it is suggesting a natural origin, although it doesn't specifically mention zoonosis directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The Tang et al (2020) article being outdated for being from June 2020 is a solid objection to using it to settle our debate on the current state of knowledge, and I have striked through its mention. I'd like us to discuss the exact wording and context used by much recent papers on this aspect of origin (evolutionary history reconstructed from molecular genomics). Myy conjecture after a couple of hours of perusing the literature is that none of the articles in top journals says or even dare to hint that there is "consensus". I invite all editors to participate in bringing the source and quotes that will helps us judge whether the conjecture is wrong. Forich (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This argument seems outdated since the article no longer has the words "consensus" in that context. I personally am happy with "echoing the assessment of most virologists" or "echoing the explanation favored by most virologists." To me, the distinction is meaningless between these and "echoing a consensus of..." at least for our purposes here. But I understand the distinction may mean something to you, and that is fine. Building consensus is about compromise! I think it would be WP:UNDUE and skating WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV problems to replace the current statements of "most virologists favor explanation X" with an extremely detailed and fraught run down of what there is and isn't agreement on. Could we have that elsewhere in the article? Yes! In the section Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Direct_zoonotic_transmission in particular I think that would be appropriate. But it is not a substitute for proper summarizing, which is what the statements in question are doing. We still need that.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy with your message, and with the current wording. Apologize my nit picking on the word consensus, I am in the middle of writing a book chapter on likelihood assesments in science and it has made me a bit intolerant to reading tiny inaccuracies in that area. Forich (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I endorse the wording change as well. Arguably more clear, since (as this discussion shows) the word 'consensus' can be interpreted pretty differently. The important concept is most virologists and most likely, not the specific word 'consensus'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if what I write here is verbose. I am not a paid contributor to wikipedia, and thus I'm able neither to check this page regularly nor contribute directly to the actual article.

Firstly, to deal with the use of the "consensus". Some level of expertise is apparently needed to deal with these articles. Science is at its core about the falsification of hypotheses. Anyone remotely familiar with this topic (eg. any university or above experience) should grasp this concept. Although Wikipedia has the goal of reporting on consensus where such a thing exists, any editor involved with science-focused articles must have this understanding going in, in order to assure that their edits and arbitrations do not misrepresent the very topic they are reporting on. I think it goes without saying that I strongly object to the suggestion of any "consensus" existing among the experts in related fields, which include not only virologists, but also geneticists, biochemists, biologists, bioinformaticians and all other experts who are involved with the process of gaining understanding on the origins of the virus. I would go on to respectfully suggest to any editor reading this who has previously recommended that some actual "consensus" should be described in these articles humbly excuse yourself from any involvement beyond preventing vandalism and the like.

Secondly, on hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a "conspiracy theory". A hypothesis is falsifiable. It is not the job of any editor here to chime in with their non-expert opinions about which hypotheses are "conspiracy theories" and which are not. I strongly disagree with the use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the first paragraph of this article. It is juxtaposed in such a way that leads a non-expert reader to correlate "several other explanations" with "conspiracy theories". The topic is notable for far-reaching reasons, and the fact that conspiracy theories are out there is in no way central to all inquiry into the question. In fact, considering the profound implications of the question at hand, any such mention should probably be left out of the lede altogether. The process of scientific discovery is not something that is helped by zealotry, quite the contrary. In direct reply to the solution offered directly above this comment, any use in this article of phrases like '"most virologists"' should be used with extreme caution. Lengths should be taken here to assume an especially strong stance of neutrality because this topic is very new, and hence very little literature exists beyond that which either forwards a hypothesis or provides argument in the form of conjecture. The later is now unusually ubiquitous most likely due to authors' and publishers' immediate concerns separate from any actual elucidation of the origins of the virus. In this spirit, I strongly disagree with the wording "most scientists say" in the lede. The lede, first and foremost, should emphasize that this is an open scientific question. An imperfect, but less objectionable wording would be something like "The origins ... remain an open question in relevant areas of research ... among the various proposed hypotheses ... natural origins is favored by a majority of scientists at this time." In other words, it is our job to show that it's an open question. Period.

Last, a quick acknowledgement to the topic of anonymous posts and other such contributions. I am grateful (as we all should be) to the anonymous IP user who started this thread. In their first reply, it appears that user RandomCanadian completely missed the valid points of that post and accused the IP account of "original research". Assuming good faith but with an understanding of what was written, that reply was absurd. (Please do not read the following as a personal attack in any form, I am only using the poor judgement of a certain editor as an example.) Being an established editor (and perhaps a paid one) on wikipedia does not make one an expert. Non-expert RandomCanadian (for example) should not be in a position to judge what constitutes a "credible paper". The very fact that RandomCanadian as of May 2021 couldn't find a single peer-reviewed source authored by an expert that argued towards a lab-origin shows at the very least that they don't have access to a basic database of journal articles, and probably that they don't have the relevant experience or skills to contribute to this article without doing far more harm than good. I think that, at least to anyone with the slightest bit of when maintaining a nuanced understanding of human social affairs, it should be quite apparent why there is a notable dearth of registered users here who are openly experts on this field. Very few principle investigators, post-docs or even grad students want to involve themselves publicly in such a forum, as the constant competition for grants from the likes of the NIH and other agencies is a strong motivator to remain anonymous. Assuming good faith as always.KristinaLu (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
  2. ^ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
  3. ^ Tang, Xiaolu; Wu, Changcheng; Li, Xiang; Song, Yuhe; Yao, Xinmin; Wu, Xinkai; Duan, Yuange; Zhang, Hong; Wang, Yirong; Qian, Zhaohui; Cui, Jie; Lu, Jian (2020-06-01). "On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2". National Science Review. 7 (6): 1012–1023. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa036.
  4. ^ Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James (2021-06-20). "Fight Over Covid's Origins Renews Debate on Risks of Lab Work". The New York Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2/Archive_6&oldid=1234250908"