The same set of authors has brought us at least two prior attempts ("proximal origin", "multiple zoonotic origins") to reject the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic arose due to a research accident. All have been covered credulously in the popular media, contributing to the false consensus that e.g. caused Facebook to delete opposing arguments. This false consensus has now broken to some extent, but apparently not yet among high-impact journals.
As for prior attempts, their result is grossly overstated. Biosafety Now has published a detailed call for its retraction:
I don't think the details are really necessary, though. Approximately zero cases outside China were traced to their introductions, despite the forewarning, and despite the restricted set of options (an airport or seaport). This isn't for lack of trying--it's just really hard to do that from epidemiological data that's necessarily scarce and biased, especially for a virus whose frequently mild symptoms mean most cases never get ascertained.
So why would anyone believe they'd succeeded at the much more difficult task of tracing that very first introduction? The usual answer seems to be "because the paper was full of math that I didn't understand, and I trusted the authors"--but that's a pretty bad reason, especially when the authors are funded by and coordinated closely with the agency that advocated for (and funded!) the high-risk research in question.
Thank you for the context. My reasons for thinking it was credible have nothing to do with "math I didn't understand."
I actually think the larger problem is how it spread via travelers and that some of the actions taken nominally for purposes of controlling the spread actually made things worse. People were herded together in airports to be checked or some nonsense.
We may never know the origin story and I still don't know what to suggest in practical terms for preventing something similar from happening again, but I do think it needs to be addressed someplace other than "wear face masks and use hand sanitizer" while otherwise doing the same stuff that helped spread the virus around the globe.
I hadn't read your top-level comment here before I wrote mine, but I think you're responding to a different question from the one the authors intended to answer. The paper's language is rather muddy (even vs. the preprint), I assume because Cell required the authors to weaken their claims. The authors' comments to the popular media express their intent more clearly:
> "This paper slots into many other studies over the last few years that have been building the case for this very clearly being a natural virus that spilled over, very likely at the Wuhan seafood market," Kristian Andersen, co-corresponding author and professor at Scripps Research, told Newsweek.
This paper is about that initial introduction of the virus into humans, not about subsequent human-to-human spread. The authors are arguing that SARS-CoV-2 was "very clearly" natural, and thus not a research accident. This forms the basis for arguments that additional regulation of high-risk biological research is unnecessary, since it's much harder to say that with the possibility that such research just killed ~30M people.
I didn't assume it was some kind of rebuttal of my comment. I'm generally looking for genuine, meaty discussion.
The pandemic impacted the entire globe and a lot of internet comments were driven by fear, not genuine curiosity or interest in problem solving.
While I understand why that is, it doesn't go good places.
I am perfectly happy to accept your assertion that context suggests this is basically a politically motivated piece trying to dismiss claims that it originated in a lab.
I wrote a piece elsewhere that boils down to "Christmas travel brought us the global pandemic." Regardless of where the issue originated, it spread globally and didn't remain a local crisis thanks to global travel and how that gets handled.
I don't have answers but I don't like the way the whole thing was handled and it's nigh impossible to have meaningful discussion of that with anyone anywhere on the Internet.
And given the lack of quality discussion, it's impossible to develop a good framework for how to even see the problem space.
My marriage was a case of opposites attract and we were once shopping for a bookcase and I hated the bookcase he wanted and he hated the bookcase I wanted. So I finally had the sense to ask why he liked it.
I wanted something pretty. He wanted something sturdy that wouldn't collapse under the weight of the books.
Armed with this information, it was possible to find a bookcase we both liked.
Decades later, most internet discussion seems to still be stuck in that space before I asked that question where we both thought the other person was clearly an idiot. Only I don't know how to get past it online.
"...we were once shopping for a bookcase and I hated the bookcase he wanted and he hated the bookcase I wanted. So I finally had the sense to ask why he liked it"
"Decades later, most internet discussion seems to still be stuck in that space before I asked that question where we both thought the other person was clearly an idiot. Only I don't know how to get past it online."
>This forms the basis for arguments that additional regulation of high-risk biological research is unnecessary
>such research just killed ~30M people.
It was a lab leak.. I should know.
The Chinese government has admitted it in secret and let's say they have made agreements to make affected nations whole, behind closed doors and with diplomacy. This in turn has trickled into media and social media indirectly and directly from China inducements, making sure that the lab leak theory is both underplayed and framed in a "we can't know for sure" light. Textbook water muddying where all sides have something to gain. If it's any consolation the party responsible for screwing up and killing more people than Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Stalin combined.... they have been dealt with appropriately by China
Substack is an openly-available hosting platform with almost zero editorial standards, so I'm not sure why anyone would consider it to have "authority"? It's like asking which brand of ballpoint pen writes the most trustworthy content.
I linked to that article because I read its content, and I believe that content to be correct. If you're looking to go by prestige instead of content, then the authors and signers are professors of molecular biology and adjacent fields, many from highly-ranked universities.
The Cell authors think SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally, beyond any reasonable doubt. The Biosafety Now authors think there's a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 arose from a research accident, and that tighter regulation of enhanced potential pandemic pathogens is therefore required. These are directly opposing views, on a question that may correspond to millions of past deaths, and yet more in future. What do you think?
As for prior attempts, their result is grossly overstated. Biosafety Now has published a detailed call for its retraction:
https://biosafetynow.substack.com/p/crits-christoph-et-al-20...
I don't think the details are really necessary, though. Approximately zero cases outside China were traced to their introductions, despite the forewarning, and despite the restricted set of options (an airport or seaport). This isn't for lack of trying--it's just really hard to do that from epidemiological data that's necessarily scarce and biased, especially for a virus whose frequently mild symptoms mean most cases never get ascertained.
So why would anyone believe they'd succeeded at the much more difficult task of tracing that very first introduction? The usual answer seems to be "because the paper was full of math that I didn't understand, and I trusted the authors"--but that's a pretty bad reason, especially when the authors are funded by and coordinated closely with the agency that advocated for (and funded!) the high-risk research in question.