Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Badroadrash101 t1_iz10xui wrote

Except that no one has shown that bats were the actual vector in Wuhan. The fact that a source reservoir was not been identified also throws into question that the “market” was the site of the outbreak. The presence of a lab in Wuhan, doing gain of function research on the Covid virus, is the most logical source of the virus. Occum’s Razor

−6

Randvek t1_iz14jyp wrote

That’s not how Occam’s razor works.

18

Moont1de t1_iz15k0j wrote

> is the most logical source of the virus. Occum’s Razo

The misunderstood AND misspelled cliche is the cherry on top of this nonsensical comment

13

[deleted] t1_iz18ov1 wrote

I think you need to read the article and understand that current working theory is that it was transmitted from bats and the study the article is referring to (which is completely different/has no relevance to the origin of where it came from) bases the study upon that belief/foundation.

The study referred to in the article is about transmissibility between humans and other mammals therefore mentioning that it came from bats is a valid reference to mention when considering the possibility of reinfecting/transmitting to bat population.

>“We were hoping to see really cool adaptive evolution happening as the virus got more used to humans and less used to bats, but we actually saw that there wasn’t a whole lot of change,” said Babbitt. “Because this binding site has not evolved very much, there’s really not much stopping it from transmitting from humans to bats. If you look at the phylogenetic relationships of bats to humans, we’re pretty far apart on the mammalian tree. So it suggests that there would be pretty widespread cross-species infectivity, and the literature has shown there’s been a lot of evidence of that.”

Also the research was computer-simulation generated so it's in theory. It's much better than just literature as a simulation can definitely help model things in real life such as the way cosmic math equations have evolved in regards to black holes and gravity but they are not absolute and it's like trying to grasp at the truth by looking at a shadow of it.

1

bryan_pieces t1_iz1xj4b wrote

Is it not logical to assume that because SARS had jumped once already in 2002 that a version of it could do the same in 2020?

1

CBL44 t1_iz2eb8x wrote

It obviously could but that doesn't mean it did. Wuhan is a unlikely place for a natural jump to humans and the most likely place for an accidental lab origin.

−1

bryan_pieces t1_iz2ek1n wrote

What makes it unlikely? The area is literally researched for its coronaviruses in the local bat population. Also close contact with the human population

5

CBL44 t1_iz2phlv wrote

The coronavirus bats tend to live in southern China or Laos and those areas are where the closest genetic relatives to Covid 19 have been found. It is also where SARS occurred. No one in the Wuhan lab has found a nearby close Covid 19 relative.

It is certainly possible that it was a natural spillover event in Wuhan or via farmed animals but Wuhan is not where you would have predicted the next SARS outbreak to occur.

1

Strazdas1 t1_iz4d1x3 wrote

There is no local bat population in Wuhan. the bats in the lab are imported from the southern areas of China.

1