There is a phenomenal amount of content to unpack in this astounding end-of-2020 @APNews article on the origins of SARS-CoV-2/covid. I spent the day thinking about how to go about a thread about their many findings. apnews.com/article/united…
The single line that stuck with me the most:

“It’s pointless to blame anyone for this disease” - Wuhan Huanan seafood market vendor Jiang

"Jiang avoided telling people he worked at Huanan because of the stigma. He criticized the political tussle between China and the U.S."
I agree on this point. I've spent many months not really wanting to be associated with my own twitter account. Not because there's something unscientific about the things I've tweeted, but because of the stigma associated with going against the consensus on covid origins.
Why does blame have so much to do with whether SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the wildlife trade or a lab leak? In both scenarios, it's an accident.

In both scenarios, you're "accusing" someone of an accident.

In both scenarios, you learn how to reduce risk of a future pandemic.
The issue now is how long origins tracking gets drawn out. How many years before we find out, with confidence, with good evidence, SARS2 emerged from a 100% natural spillover from animals into humans vs a lab-based scenario. And what to do during those years when we don't know.
This is where the @APNews article begins, similar to the @BBC team, at a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan, China, where miners suffered a mysterious pneumonia and where the closest virus to SARS2 was collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in 2013.
The mine "may hold clues to the origins of the coronavirus that has killed more than 1.7 million people worldwide. Yet for scientists and journalists, it has become a black hole of no information because of political sensitivity and secrecy."
apnews.com/article/united…
Similar to @BBC, the @APNews team was "tailed by plainclothes police in multiple cars who blocked access to roads and sites in late November"

They also obtained intel that a Chinese "bat research team visiting recently managed to take samples but had them confiscated"...
This does not mean that SARS-CoV-2/covid came from that Mojiang mine or from the miners who sickened with a mysterious viral pneumonia in 2012. But it does suggest that there's tight control over who investigates and what results will be published.
This is supported by the leaked CCP documents that @APnews obtained: "publication of any data or research must be approved by a new task force managed by China’s cabinet, under direct orders from President Xi Jinping... The clampdown comes from the top." documentcloud.org/documents/7340…
"Gary Kobinger, a Canadian microbiologist advising WHO, emailed... on Jan. 13. “If we put aside an accident ... then I would look at the bats in these markets (sold and ‘wild’).”"

What kind of accident are we talking about?
Feb 24 China CDC "new approval processes for publication.. from.. President Xi.. notices ordered CDC staff not to share any data, specimens or other information related to the coronavirus with outside institutions or individuals."

So pre-Feb 24, you'd have communications, right?
Exoneration of the Huanan market: "China CDC researcher Liu Jun returned to the market nearly 20 times to collect some 2,000 samples over the following months, nothing was released about what they revealed. On May 25, CDC chief Gao finally broke the silence around the market...
"... in an interview with China’s Phoenix TV. He said that, unlike the environmental samples, no animal samples from the market had tested positive.

The announcement surprised scientists who didn’t even know Chinese officials had taken samples from animals."
"February, Chinese scientists put out 4 separate papers on coronaviruses related to COVID-19 in trafficked Malayan pangolins.. (Linfa) Wang.. Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore said the search for the coronavirus in pangolins did not appear to be “scientifically driven.”
The things we could tell you about these pangolins...
"The Chinese government is also limiting and controlling the search for patient zero through the re-testing of old flu samples.. only published retrospective testing data from two Wuhan flu surveillance hospitals — 520 samples out of the 330,000 collected in China last year."
"info that has dribbled out suggests.. virus was circulating well outside Wuhan in 2019.. child >100km frm Wuhan had fallen ill with the virus by Jan 2, suggesting it was spreading widely in Dec. But earlier samples weren’t tested, according to a scientist with direct knowledge"
My take on this is that it has become basically impossible for an independent (no reasonably perceived conflicts of interest) international team to investigate the top 3 origins scenarios of SARS2/covid: (1) recent spillover from an animal into humans in late 2019 (scenario A)...
(2) low level pre-circulation of SARS2 in humans, likely proximal to Wuhan, over months/years prior to late 2019 (scenario A), or (3) lab-based scenarios of SARS2 emergence (scenarios B, C, D).
A scientist told me that B is a natural scenario, but I classified it as lab-based because the resulting decision-making has to do with limiting/adapting lab or research activities. If SARS2 emerged because lab personnel were sampling too many sick bats and pple, we need to stop.
I think most people will (hopefully) tell you that adding 10,000s of pathogen sequences to a database is not worth millions of lives.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alina Chan

Alina Chan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Ayjchan

31 Dec 20
Really good story telling by @whippletom and some honestly funny quotes by experts in this @thetimes article about the search for the origins of covid. @shingheizhan and I are very flattered to have been interviewed for this story. thetimes.co.uk/article/how-di…
I like the article & think it gives lab origins fair evaluation:
“Publicly, many extremely senior scientists have opposed this idea. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories.. wrote one group in the Lancet..
Privately, some told The Times it was not so absurd.”
Although would have been good to also highlight the history of that Lancet letter if there was space in the article for it- in terms of Daszak writing it, who agreed to co-sign vs who didn’t agree to, and its connection to the NASEM letter emails mentioned in @thetimes article.
Read 6 tweets
30 Dec 20
I understand why reputable polls are using "covid was created in a lab" as a conspiracy theory/misinformation test, but at the same time it feels like a throwback to the infamous 2015 poll showing that over 80% of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"...
These polls can set unintentional traps for people who do not have strong scientific literacy (which does not equate to stupidity). 2015, I was 🤣 hearing that 80% of Americans wanted labels on foods containing DNA, but was rightly chastised by a friend..
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-co…
These polls should keep average scientific literacy in mind and attach explanations or exclude options that are too challenging or nuanced to clearly explain to participants in a brief survey.

In this poll, why not rephrase as "covid is an intentionally released bioweapon"?
Read 14 tweets
30 Dec 20
“Scientists have little insight into where and how the virus emerged, in part because Beijing has delayed an independent investigation into the animal origins of the outbreak.”

“There’s no serious discussion on what actually went wrong.” nytimes.com/2020/12/30/wor…
I feel like questions about bad science or bad scientific reporting often come down to the simple question of how much was due to honest error vs misconduct.

For me, these were the most interesting points in the @nytimes article on the early events of covid emergence in Wuhan.
Dec 30 "(Wuhan) authorities ordered hospitals to report.. cases. By policy, the hospitals should have also reported them directly to the national C.D.C... They didn’t."

Dr. Gao (China CDC) "when asked about how he learned about the Wuhan cases.. Everyone saw it on the internet.”
Read 10 tweets
28 Dec 20
Nothing strange happened in Wuhan but if you go around asking questions, you get tortured and thrown in prison for 4 years.
Nothing to see at these mines in Yunnan where SARS2-like viruses were collected, but if you try to visit, broken down lorries will appear on the road, blocking you until you leave for the airport.
Nothing unnatural about the spike S1/S2 furin cleavage site in SARS2 but it wasn’t even mentioned in the WIV’s first covid paper in @nature despite their very careful comparison of SARS2 to SARS1.
Read 7 tweets
24 Dec 20
“Rather than harsh and largely ineffective travel bans, we should instead focus on encouraging compliance with proven interventions such as masking, distancing.. empowers people with the information to make good decisions to protect themselves and their families.”
I know masks are very contentious in the US. I’d like to ask people to please consider:

Imagine being in the same room as a covid case, would you not want a mask? Would you not want the covid+ person to be wearing a mask while sharing your office or performing a service for you?
Imagine getting a phone call (if you’re that lucky and someone is actually testing and contact tracing), and being told your office mate, who shares your office for hours a day, just tested positive for covid. Would you have wanted this person or yourself to have worn a mask?
Read 4 tweets
22 Dec 20
A single event "sent viruses to at least 29 other states and 9 countries.. resulting in 100ks of infections.. One of the surprising things is the extent.. viruses can spread so quickly, particularly when younger, healthier people are involved who don’t realize they are infected."
".. the ultimate impact to society can paradoxically be greater when chains of transmission involve younger, healthier, and more mobile populations. That has important implications for the precautions people need to take, even after vaccination."
"people who have been vaccinated could still be infected, carrying and transmitting the virus, without feeling sick. Until we know more, it is critical that those who have been vaccinated still wear masks, practice physical distancing, and take other precautions to avoid spread."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!