Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

House of Reps Report conclusion

[edit]

The final report of U.S. House of Representatives on the Coronavirus Pandemic (4 December 2024) bluntly states – "FINDING: SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident."[1]. The Democratic Party's report on this report took issue with some of its findings but states: "Today, a zoonotic origin and lab accident are both plausible, as is a hybrid scenario reflecting a mixture of the two....However... without greater transparency from the Chinese Communist Party it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know the origins of COVID-19."[2] A summation of this surely needs to appear in the header given it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government which funded the work at Wuhan. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
Junk source, of no use to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the world's people don't live in the USA, the country that most politicised the pandemic. I see little value in using this information. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report is garbage and probably fails WP:MEDRS. It is not true that it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government as it is a report from the legislature, not the executive. It warrants discussion at COVID-19 lab leak theory, but I concur it adds little here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's utterly juvenile, bad faith replies like this that make people lose trust in Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's junk sources that make people lose trust in Congress. Per this article:

The conclusions themselves aren't especially interesting; they're expected from a report with partisan aims. But the method used to reach those conclusions is often striking: The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report's authors favor, they'll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.
...
So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOIA documents show that Dr. Fauci was concerned it was a lab leak even before it made news. Is he now a bad source? 50.107.31.239 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having concern is not the same as certainty. Peaceray (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's what scientists do; they have hypotheses, test them against evidence, and form conclusions. Fauci and other virologists went through this process in 2020; the conspiracy theorists OTOH omit the science stage and adopt a belief-based approach. This is sourced/covered in our lab leak article. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article with regard to origin, is so utterly outdated and absurd it should be deleted and restarted with the point of view of the gain of function lab leak fact.
Why would anyone still use the "bat excuse" when we know better... Unless there is some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci.
Read' Rand Paul
Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up
And now "Talk" is subject to censorship?
btw, the persistent use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative for other scientific views is notable. The only "conspiracy theory" I see anymore after FOIA revealed early interchanges of the principles is that CV wasn't gain of function and magically came from animals when principles said (early on) that wasn't possible. Ecgberht1 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds does this constitute WP:SOAPBOXing yet? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because facts re: FOIA revelations, and a reference are provided. Ecgberht1 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is sub-par, and its inclusion is not merited. Specifically, it is WP:BIASED. If you find a better source substantiating your view, we are more than happy to review it and potentially include it. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this constitutes soapboxing. It's also an NPA violation, accusing editors of some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci. You're really pushing it here, and I highly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key word, "unless" (which you omit). That's NOT an accusation unless you identify with it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how language works. Drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You first. Language does not "work" by using straw men and misquoting others. Seeking sanctions for your violation of NPA. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the persistent use of "conspiracy theory" for the presentation of any information that challenges the orthodoxy of "animal VIRUS"? Would that be considered NPA? Ecgberht1 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any instance of that where the use of "conspiracy theory" is not in reference to sources characterizing the theory as such? BD2412 T 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole article on it wrt CV.
https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation Ecgberht1 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, if you don't stop with such loaded language and bludgeoning, we'll have to seek sanctions to have you barred from this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your solution for not having a response. Seeking sanctions for harassment as well. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey bud, if you've been offended by anything I've written then I'm sorry you have been. What I suggest is that before spouting "subpar" and claiming "bias"about a reference you know nothing about, you actually read the book. You can get it free on Hoopla, it's loaded with solid evidence for the lableak theory and details why the natural development in animals is impossible. You can skip right to chapter 4, but I encourage starting at the beginning.
I hope you have sufficient interest in the science to explore it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is just condescending as fuck. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, no, I do have to demolish your "reference." It is by Rand Paul, an opthamologist who has no background in viral pathology who, when faced with changes in the certification for his practice, chose to create his own unaccredited board to give himself a "certification" just to spite the real one. Then let it fall apart when he moved into politics. The man's a con artist with no qualifications in this area, so attempting to push him as some kind of expert on this topic is daft. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know enough about immunology and pathology to understand that Rand Paul's conclusions are inconsistent with existing literature (systematically reviewed literature, at that). The solid evidence you speak of is, at best, speculation. Bats have been well known throughout history to be hot breeding grounds for viruses and other nasty pathogens, and although zoonosis is usually uncommon, that is not to say it is impossible. There is significant misinterpretation and misconstruing of statistics that have been weaponised by certain people to serve a political purpose. I do believe one of the arguments for the lab leak theory is the CGG codon argument, with proponents arguing that such a rare combination of two sequential codons being a "tell-tale" sign of genetic engineering. Well, yes, it is rare in nature, but again, not impossible. It is important to remember lots of things in nature happen (and don't happen) because things line up (or don't). Confirmation bias often leads people to draw connections between things that do not necessarily exist. It is sub-par because it is written with an ulterior motive, that is, to signal his virtue that he is standing for what is "right" and uncovering the "truth", whatever that means to his voters. You are being conned. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBI report pointing to lab leak

[edit]

This article is out of date. As of today, there is official scrutiny of the WHO.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/fbi-covid-19-pandemic-lab-leak-theory-dfbd8a51 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a global website, not an American one. It is a scholarly website, not a popular media news-based one. Additionally, this information is not WP:DUE for this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional push to endorse the lab-leak theory is based on an op-ed, while ignoring the actual science. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

[edit]

After the paragraph:

The first known case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.[21] Most scientists believe the SARS-CoV-2 virus entered into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.[22][23] Social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood of such zoonotic spillover.[24][25][26][27]

you might want to insert a paragraph:

There are reports that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus may have existed earlier, although its impact on human health before the pandemic outbreak is not clear and well studied. Traces of the coronavirus have been detected in wastewater in several locations around the world since the summer of 2019. [28], [29], [30], [31). There are also clues that it could have been present in Europe in the fall of 2019, which could be indicated by the excess deaths observed in various NUTS3 regions [32]

[28] Apolone, G., Montomoli, E., Manenti, A., Boeri, M., Sabia, F., Hyseni, I., Mazzini, L., Martinuzzi, D., Cantone, L., Milanese, G., Sestini, S., Suatoni, P., Marchianò, A., Bollati, V., Sozzi, G., & Pastorino, U. (2020). Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the pre-pandemic period in Italy. Tumori Journal, 33176598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620974755

[29] Fongaro, G., Stoco, P. H., Souza, D. S. M., Grisard, E. C., Magri, M. E., Rogovski, P., Schörner, M. A., Barazzetti, F. H., Christoff, A. P., de Oliveira, L. F. V., Bazzo, M. L., Wagner, G., Hernández, M., & Rodríguez-Lázaro, D. (2021). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in human sewage in santa catarina, Brazil, November 2019. Science of the Total Environment, 778, 146198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146198

[30] Chavarria-Miró, G., Anfruns-Estrada, E., Martínez-Velázquez, A., Vázquez-Portero, M., Guix, S., Paraira, M., Galofré, B., Sánchez, G., Pintó, R.M., & Bosch, A. (2021). Time-evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 87(7):e02750-20 https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02750-20

[31] La Rosa, G., Mancini, P., Bonanno Ferraro G., Veneri, C., Iaconelli, M., Bonadonna, L., Lucentini, L., & Suffredini, E. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy since December 2019: Evidence from environmental monitoring. Sciences of the Total Environment, 750, 141711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141711

[32] Śleszyński P., Kurek S., Krzystofik R., Owsiński J., 2024, Do variations in anomalous mortality in Europe in fall and winter of 2019–2020 tell us anything on the timing of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak?, Population Space and Place, 30, 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2724 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.2724

46.205.194.183 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not done. All the research papers you've provided are primary research articles, meaning they are not suitable for medical content on wikipedia, including epidemiology like this. I had difficulty finding secondary sources for these claims.
As an aside, there are explanations for these findings that do not necessarily mean SARS-COV-2 was circulating earlier. Depending on how carefully such sensitive experiments are conducted, they may pick up traces of viruses RELATED TO sars-cov-2 that have been circulating in humans for a very long time. In particular, antibody ELISA sero-prevalence assays have always suffered from this problem. PCR probes detecting SARS-COV-2 RNA have this problem also (overly sticky probes), even moreso because RNA isn't very long lived in nature.
scientist hat off, wiki hat back on. Regardless, we would need reliable MEDRS-quality secondary sources (a review article, textbook, etc) which describes such claims in more context before we include it here in this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2025

[edit]

While most scientists supported the zoonotic hypothesis, this was in the early stages of the pandemic (2021-2022). However, as of 2023-2025 several US intelligence agencies (Dept Energy, FBI, and as of Jan 26, 2025 the CIA) place the lab leak hypothesis as the most likely hypothesis, with varying levels of confidence. [1] Confidence largely remains low given the lack of an intermediate host (i.e., bridge animal), which had been found for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, and the evolutionary distance to the nearest natural virus, the bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), which has a 96.2% similarity to that of a SARS-CoV-2.[2] The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been studying the bat RaRG13 virus, as recently as 2017, propogating and modifying the virus for infection in human cells. WIV published a 2015 paper co-authored by researchers from WIV and the University of North Carolina describing the creation of a chimeric coronavirus by combining the spike protein of a bat coronavirus with a SARS-CoV backbone. This hybrid virus was shown to infect human cells via the ACE2 receptor.[3][4] 2600:1017:A410:6E1E:FD8E:AB67:C948:F2CD (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o
  2. ^ https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463?utm_source=chatgpt.com&login=false
  3. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
  4. ^ https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

 Not done - This request - or absence of an actual "change x to y" with a convincing source - was more of a counter-narrative to the spillover mechanism which remains the prevailing scientific explanation, as is well-represented under the History section. Zefr (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=1272003468"