The COVID Origins Debate Heats Back Up
COVID-19 was back in the news this week as the Energy Department released a new assessment that the coronavirus pandemic began from a lab leak rather than a natural origin. The report, detailed in the Wall Street Journal, has reignited the debate about the pandemic and has raised questions such as, “What does the Energy Department have to do with pandemic origins?”
To begin with, it’s important to note what the DOE assessment is and what it isn’t. As with many stories, most people trumpeting their opinions haven’t read beyond the headline, but the story makes two important points. First, the DOE made its assessment with “low confidence,” indicating a lack of concrete evidence for the possibility of a lab leak. Second, the DOE and the FBI agree that a lab leak is most likely, the FBI with “moderate confidence,” but the CIA and another agency not named in the article take the opposite position and consider a natural origin more likely. Two other intelligence agencies are still straddling the fence.
The bottom line is that we don’t know how the pandemic started, regardless of what people on either side of the debate are saying. We may never know.
Part of the reason that we may never discover just how the pandemic started is that it can be very difficult to trace the viral origins of a disease to both its human patient zero as well as the animal from which it jumped to our species. In the case of COVID-19, the virological sleuthing is made even more difficult by the Chinese government.
We all know that the Chinese government obfuscated and lied in the early days of the pandemic, but this isn’t necessarily evidence of complicity. Most of us would probably agree that governments lie reflexively. In the case of communist governments, the problem is even worse. They don’t need a reason to lie. They just do.
Nevertheless, there could be logic in covering up the outbreak of a new disease, even if China wasn’t at fault. The Chinese government, not initially realizing the severity of the problem, could have wanted to protect its image and avoid economic problems. Call this the “Amity Island” scenario from the town fathers who wanted to avoid scaring people away from the beach on a holiday weekend, but this type of thinking is seen in pretty much any disaster movie.
Once the cat was out of the bag, the motivation for the coverup could have changed. At that point, it would have become about saving face for the regime. Under any authoritarian government, Job One is going to be the continuity of the government and the party. The party’s survival would be threatened if the government revealed itself to be incompetent enough to kill billions of people worldwide.
That isn’t to say that it couldn’t have been a lab leak either. Despite the many unproven conspiracy theories surrounding the lab leak hypotheses, the circumstantial evidence, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology being located so close to the Huanan Seafood Market where early cases manifested, is difficult to ignore.
One thing that doesn’t seem to be at issue is whether the pandemic began as a result of a biological weapons project. A report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified in 2021 found that the majority of the intelligence community did not find compelling evidence that the virus was engineered. Again, confidence was low due to the lack of reliable information, which incidentally, has not prevented cable news pundits from making their own assessments with high confidence, if not accuracy.
If you began reading this article expecting me to tell you that the pandemic was definitely the result of a lab leak or definitely natural, prepare to be disappointed. If US intelligence doesn’t know, I surely don’t. Neither does anyone outside the Chinese government. The difference is that I’ll admit it.
Dr. Fauci said it best in an interview with the Boston Globe after the WSJ story broke. A skeptic of the lab leak theory, Fauci said, “You have to look at the data. I don’t see any data for a lab leak. That doesn’t mean it could not have happened, and that’s the reason I keep an open mind always about that.”
We need to keep looking for more evidence and not get locked into either particular viewpoint. Look at the evidence and see where it takes us. Use the scientific method.
We may never know exactly how the nightmare of the COVID-19 pandemic began. The evidence just isn’t available and may not be for years or decades. For the time being, we need to accept that all we have are educated guesses made with low confidence. That means not acting rashly.
And why was the DOE even making an assessment on COVID-19? As it turns out, the DOE is the parent agency of the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, an intelligence agency that “protects vital national security information and technologies, representing intellectual property of incalculable value.” The agency may seem to be far afield in a biological matter, but my guess is that is involved in Chinese matters because of the intellectual property mission.
I don’t mind the attitude that says “we don’t know where it came from, you shouldn’t reach a conclusion”.
I don’t mind the attitude that says “we don’t know where it came from, you shouldn’t reach a conclusion, but I do understand how China’s stonewalling makes it look bad.”
I *DO* mind the attitude that says… well, I’ll let Nate Silver say it:
Report
I’m old enough to remember even suggesting the origin was a lab leak was racist, but concluding it came from a “wet market” was not.
Good times.Report
The lab leak theory might not have met with such derision if proponents hadn’t been espousing in since the spring of 2020 with no evidence other than it seemed to have Chinese origins.Report
As opposed to the wet market theory that “debunked” the lab leak theory without any actual evidence either? Despite the known fact that gain of function research on covid was being conducted at a facility at the epicenter of the outbreak?
Give me a break.Report
I heard a story on NPR yesterday regarding the wet market theory. Apparently, some scientists went there and tested some of the animals and found they were just about sh*tting coronavirus.
Neither you nor DD have offered any evidence available in early 2020 that would lead to substantiation of the lab leak theory.Report
No, just common sense and good a BS detector.
Just because NPR is digging their heels in on this doesn’t mean you have to.
Occam’s Razor, man.Report
Facts and feelings, amiright?Report
Just because you choose to dismiss certain facts because they don’t fit your preferred narrative, doesn’t mean they become just feelings to those who factor them into their analysis.
And again, this isn’t about what theory is correct as much as it is about asserting it’s just one possibility and you’re a bad person if you think it could possibly be otherwise.Report
What facts are you referring to, that were known in March 2020, sir?Report
Matty talked about this in his latest Slow Boring:
From *MY* experience, I was willing to see “it’s a couple hundred yards from The Wuhan Institute of Virology” as weak evidence and Chinese stonewalling as consistent with a lab leak.Report
as John said, it always did seem odd that “it was a lab leak” was seen as less disgustingly nationalist/racist than “those people eat bats right out of the tree”Report
There was a funny moment where Moby went on a rant about how the Chinese unleashed the virus on the world and everybody got upset and then Moby clarified that Chinese people should be vegan and not eat animals and everybody looked at their shoes.Report
Could be true, but to treat is as conclusive, as it was being done in early 2020, is a pretty big leap.Report
So we have moved from “no evidence” to “to treat is as conclusive” in a very short amount of time.
The wet market was treated as conclusive when it shouldn’t have been and, get this, the argument was that the science was settled.
Have we hammered out whether Fauci was connected to the Institute of Virology yet? Whether the I-of-V was doing G-of-F?Report
Let me spell out, since you seem to be deliberately missing the point, exactly what I’m saying. Lab leak proponents were treating the theory as conclusively proven in the spring of 2020 despite a near complete lack of evidence. Please don’t restate my comment to suit your ends.Report
But I wasn’t treating it as conclusive.
I was arguing that the fact that it was a few hundred yards away from the Institute of Virology was weak evidence that it was a lab leak and the Chinese stonewalling was consistent with that evidence.
And that turned into “to treat is as conclusive, as it was being done in early 2020, is a pretty big leap.”
You’re not dealing with my argument. You’re dealing with the arguments of other people.
I can understand saying “the wet market argument is persuasive”.
But I don’t think that the science was settled and I do think that the discourse that effectively shut down the whole “lab leak” hypothesis out of the gate was actively bad.
Both Nate Silver and Matt Yglesias got into this. I linked to their takes on this too and they’re both a lot more nuanced than “this theory was conclusively proven!”Report
I never said you were one of the people treating it as conclusive back then. Were you?
There were piles of people back then who were who are unjustifiably crowing about a report that explicitly states it reaches a low confidence conclusion.
We’re never going to know one way or the other. Anyone confidently staking out a position one way or the other is playing pin the tail on the donkey.Report
It goes both ways Jay. If it was a lab leak then the fact that the lab it leaked from is only an extremely short distance from a wet market where the folks are virtually wallowing in animal based coronovirus infected material is an astonishing coincidence.
If it was an animal to human biotransfer from a wet market where people were virtually wallowing in animal based coronavirus infected material then the fact that the biotransfer occurred only a short distance from a biolab that did research on coronaviruses is an astonishing coincidence.
And the Chinese governments stonewalling just makes everything worse.Report
The stonewalling is probably the strongest evidence in favor of the leak theory. The Chinese certainly have not covered themselves in glory here.
Purely supposition, however.Report
They are a collectively honor-based culture, steeped in individual shame as an enforcement mechanism with a top down authoritarian government. Even biological breakthrough from one species to another would get stonewalled.Report
Sure but the Chinese would absolutely stonewall in either scenario because they deny it originated in China what so ever.Report
And I will go back to what I opened with:
Report
Yes, Nate is correct, Twitter is a festering cesspool and I hope it dies.Report
Yellow journalism, baby. In all its glory.Report
Pah, we could be so lucky. In the yellow journalism days individual papers were profitable as a going concern.
I half hope, half fear, that whatever the paradigm for journalism is will emerge and I half hope, half fear, that there isn’t a new one and we’ll just be stuck with the rotting festering old model forever.Report
The people back then did it because they were getting paid. This was a limitation.
The people today? Amateurs doing it for dopamine and serotonin.
Much, much, *MUCH* more sustainable.Report
I’ll mark you down as a vote predicting the endurance of our current festering model. Boo hurrah.Report
Chinese stonewalling is consistent with everything.Report
While that’s certainly true, after the “this came to China from a US military base!” storyline flopped, the whole “zoonotic in origin and if you don’t agree you’re a crackpot” was picked up by people who were more than happy enough to pivot from “nobody knows where it came from and you can’t prove anything!” to “you can’t prove it wasn’t from the wet market!”
And that stonewalling stuck.Report
lol
tired: “the only reason you thought it was a lab leak is that you’re racist!”
wired: “the only reason we didn’t think it was a lab leak is that you’re racist!”Report
No one’s talking about race but you, man.Report
This is yet ANOTHER reminder that critical thinking, and understanding the language of and calculations for probability and scientific uncertainty are both lacking in American educational systems. Were we as a nation better at understanding and reasoning through uncertainty and ambiguity, we wouldn’t be doing dance again.Report
Oooh, here’s an interesting tidbit! From yesterday, even.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html:
I suppose that there’s a “stay in your lane!” joke that we could make.Report
Weird that our domestic national police force is even conducting an investigation. Same for the DoE.Report
They are part of the “intelligence” community and probably got tasked by the DNI with looking at something. It happens.Report
Until China’s culture and political calculations change, we won’t settle this question. So perhaps we can stop rattling sabers and concentrate on getting people regularly immunized and treated.Report
yeah my main feeling on this is “call me when finding out “whodunnit” will bring my cousin back to life, or my family friend, or fix my shaky mental health after the pandemic, or fix a friend’s kid’s T1D he contracted after getting it”
I mean, I get that humans LOVE having someone to blame, but…..I’d rather see the news reporting yelling about “why aren’t we upgrading building ventilation” instead of this.Report
We are regularly immunized (annually) against flu. We are regularly immunized (every 5 years) against Tetinus. Covid is no different.
Troll harder next time.Report
Nice use of Chat GPT.Report
So lets review:
1. Absolutely no one, anywhere, knows enough to determine the origins.
2. Lots of people have tried, and are still trying to advance their pet theory based on priors and tangential agendas despite knowing absolutely nothing about anything having to do with the virus.
3. Almost no new information has emerged to change any of this since 2020.
Carry on.Report
TL:DR – correlation is not causation.Report
I think that part of the debate involves stuff like “maybe we shouldn’t have suppressed discussion of the issue”.
Eliding that is eliding what many are talking about.Report
Who was suppressing what now?Report
It was discussed heavily. Here included. And most reasonable people dismissed for lack of evidence. Still do.Report
It was suppressed because *checks notes* pushing definitively at the lab leak theory would get you dragged on twitter.Report
BOOM!Report
I remain thankful I have never dived into the cesspool of Twitter.Report
Yeah, it’s weird what Nate Silver is complaining about.Report
An interesting theory:
Report
It’s not the worst theory in play. But that’s not really “lab leak” is it? I mean that has always been cast as an intentional act either due to a desire for bioterror or due to lax (read sub-par beneath Americans) lab control protocols.Report
I don’t know that it counts as “intentional” as much as “malign neglect of protocols”.
But I sure as heck would count it as a lab leak.Report
It’s absolutely a lab leak!
Expanding it to intentional bio-terror is precisely the ‘fake’ suppression of the issue that started all of this.Report
This is what rightfully deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.
Those who originate it, and those who amplify it.Report
This particular idea is as close as I will come to “lab leak.” Though again we’d need to see proof. Just like any of the other lab leak ideas.Report
What other reckless and unfounded ideas should we amplify and spread?
I have a better idea.
Let’s mock and ridicule anyone who does this.Report
“Yes. Let’s bring ‘mean girls’ social tools into a scientific discussion. What could possibly go wrong?”Report
Scientific?
SCIENTIFIC?
Your reckless amplification of a random conjecture assigning blame for a global pandemic which killed millions of people spun out of whole cloth is as unscientific and dangerous as the Protocols and deserves every bit as much ridicule.Report
As the Protocols? Golly!
Anyway, I give it this framing:
Is a tactic designed to move the ball? (Or prevent the ball being moved in the wrong way?)
How successful will it be at moving the ball, if it moves? What are the risks associated? Do we have a choice between a sure-fire small amount of progress versus a hail-mary large amount of progress? Which would give a better ROI?
versus
Is the point of this tactic to do little more than loudly communicate that I am a member in good standing of Team Good?
And I see stuff like “let’s use the tools of mockery and ridicule!” as the latter rather than the former.
But I can *TOTALLY* see how someone hoping to communicate one’s membership status as being far, far more important than the bullshit engineering questions.Report
“por que no los dos” is an amusing way to close the discussionReport
I don’t agree with MattY on, like, any policy positions… but his timeline review of the Covid Origin ‘issue’ in 2021 is the best starting place.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco
In my opinion, and what I’ve said since 2020, is that the Lancet letter which set the ‘acceptable’ opinion of Science is *the* primary issue. The conflicts of interest between Daszak / Ecohealth Alliance and WIV should have prompted *extra* scrutiny. Instead, it stopped the scrutiny; it stopped the scrutiny and stigmatized anyone who thought further scrutiny was warranted.
True, it also got polarized and Team Red took some things in bizarre directions, to which Team Blue doubled down on ‘non-science’ in service of the narrative.
The more you read about the baseline scientific cleavages around GoF, funding, research, oversight, etc… the more you realize that scrutiny isn’t merely warranted, but probably imperative.
My personal maximalist position/hunch is that the existing threads that *already* link NIH, ecohealth, WIV will be part of a broader oversight failure common to bureaucracies — doing things in semi-compliance with sufficient plausible deniability under ordinary circumstances. Extra-ordinary circumstances usually unravel the fact that people who disagreed with the limitations placed upon them find ways to skirt those limitations in the name of doing good. Again, my *maximalist* hunch, is that the NIH as little more than a fountain of money (that’s the other revelation) complied with the moratorium on GoF in letter, but not in spirit.
It’s fine to ridicule my ‘hunch’ it’s just the sort of journalistic ‘hunch’ that journalists should follow-up given that the NIH, ecohealth, WIV, China, and everyone dependent upon NIH grants (that’s a lot of influence peddling right there in the Lancet community) are heavily incented to make sure that the letter vs. spirit distinction never sees the light of day.
To round it out, my Medium hunch is that it leaked from the lab but from work that wasn’t specifically related to NIH/ecohealth but part-and-parcel of doing research in China with oversight that doesn’t cover all the things related to work in the labs.
Finally, for full bias transparency my dual minimalist takes are:
1) We’ll eventually find the zoonotic link. No, the wetmarket *isn’t* the link… it’s potentially ground 0 – which could be human to animal leap as easily as animal to human – we’re still missing an actual wild variant which we quickly found for SARS and MERS. This is on the zoonotic folks to produce. Sure, China isn’t cooperating, but you’d have to be willfully naïve to think that Chinese authorities aren’t desperately looking for that conclusive link and would publish it and share samples with the scientific community the minute they found it.
and,
2) We eventually find the zoonotic link, which was brought to Wuhan via the work with bats at the WIV… maximally minimalist via a person not subject to Lab protocols.Report
This Atlantic article is interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/chinese-lab-leak-hypothesis-coronavirus/619000/.
I guess the question is let’s say somehow we’re able to definitely pin this on a Chinese lab leak, how does that change Chinese behavior going forward?Report
It would change US behavior going forward. If Chinese labs are going to delete data and a forensic audit by us or a acceptable third party (that isn’t cowed by the Chinese) then guidelines for funding research with Chinese research partners are revised.
Failures, if any, of oversight need to be documented in the audit and processes at home and abroad updated/improved.
China may or may not ‘change’ to be in compliance; we also ‘decapitated’ their cutting-edge chip manufacturing capabilities for different, but relevant geo-political considerations.Report
I’m less sure than you are about the actual source but I do often wonder how this would look had it not happened at the height of the house of mirrors effect the Trump presidency had on everything. Maybe the press would have been just as credulous, but there’s a whole other still not quite told story about government accountability and failure to appreciate that many of the scientific and bureaucratic authorities on the subject are also highly self-interested.Report
Clearly.
The Ur chain of events are all connected to Tom Cotton saying on Feb 14, 2020 that any possible connection to the WIV needs to be investigated. Which was *over-represented* by the WP and NYT as Genetically engineered Bioweapon… which Cotton corrected in realtime Feb 16, 2020. Noting that natural and/or accidental leaks need to be investigated and that absent this we can’t rule out bio-engineering or the ‘unlikely’ event of a bio-weapon.
The Lancet Letter (Feb 19, 2020) is built upon the willful misreading and asserted that the virus has a ‘natural’ origin in wildlife – which deflects from whether the Lab itself was or was not the ‘natural origin’ of the pandemic.
Importantly, it is the Lancet Letter which escalates and says that *any* other explanation is a conspiracy theory. Subsequent ‘discourse’ always referred to maximalist bio-weapon talking points that deliberately obscured the primary questions of bio-safety and Chinese compliance.
https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202134048133126?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1229202134048133126%7Ctwgr%5Ef178342d6a3732b70a20985a55f2a331d6a60a36%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F02%2F17%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Fcoronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html
But as I note above, MattY does a thorough job of deconstructing the Narrative as it originated from an anti-Cotton, anti-Trump place and solidified into anti-science defend-the-narrative-at-all-costs position.
But yes, I completely agree that it was the ‘house of mirrors’ effect that marks the entire politicization of Covid such that ‘anti-science’ becomes labeled ‘science’ in the name of protecting ‘science’ from ‘anti-science’.Report
In which universe is the Chinese government allowing forensic auditors from the outside into one of their government facilities?Report
Then that’s the answer to whether we fund projects that carry this level of risk and require that level of collaboration and accountability in China or anywhere else.Report
“There’s all of this concern about what’s gain of function or what’s not, with the implication that that research led to SARS-CoV-2, and Covid-19, which, George, unequivocally anything that knows anything about viral biology and phylogeny of viruses know that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses that were worked on to turn into SARS-CoV-2 because they were distant enough molecularly that no matter what you did to them, they could never, ever become SARS-CoV-2.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fauci-blasts-rand-paul-covid-lab-theory-1247137/
If the above statement is true, then there’s no way the lab leak theory could be true. If it’s not, then we should be having a different discussion. And I don’t know if it’s true, but someone should.Report
That said, Fauci would have to be insane if he kept an open mind about something that was molecularly impossible.Report
If the above statement is true, then there’s no way the lab leak theory could be true.
My hypothesis has always been that Covid-19 was a naturally-occurring pathogen, brought to the virology institute in a field sample. Not all samples go into level 4 isolation. Someone got a snoot-full that included the Covid-19 coronavirus in a lower level lab and then carried it out in their respiratory tract. By accident, not on purpose.Report
Welcome to the IDW, Michael Cain. That’s a lab leak theory.Report
Yeah, but it’s not a weaponized virus theory, or an intentional leak theory. Could as easily been someone who came back from the field having gotten a snoot-full in a cave and been incubating it in a sinus. The principle feature is just that the animal it came from wasn’t in the wet market.
Case zero could have sneezed all over people in the wet market at the wrong time, no matter where they got it.Report
Sure, but the actual discussions among ‘serious’ people were never about weaponized bio-tech or intentional leak… that was the clear ‘deflect’ by the folks who didn’t want to discuss it. If you read the denials, they are pretty clearly denying the extreme positions, not the substantive process positions.
And, even in your ‘natural’ leak (which I totally agree is plausible) there would be an auditable trail of workers and field samples that had the bat population version of covid.
Which raises the question (i don’t know the answer), what are the protocols for gathering virus samples for the guano spelunkers? Are they doing it in full bio-hazard gear? Are they just locals paid on the cheap? If we’re hunting viruses and we accidentally released a pandemic because we didn’t think to treat sample gathering as a biohazard, maybe we do going forward.Report
One comparison that I saw today was to Chernobyl. Not, you know, the nuclear part but the whole “figuring out what happened” part.
The big thing that had to be overcome was how many people in charge or this or that area could not be trusted to report accurate information and how much accurate information was immediately dismissed entirely out of hand.
There were a bunch of people who said that the reactor 4 exploded. It blew up. The experts in charge explained that this could not have happened. There was a horrifying moment where one of the leads berated the guy who said “I saw the aftermath of it blowing up” by telling him that it couldn’t have blown up and asking “are you stupid? Explain to me how this could have blown up. It couldn’t have. Explain it to me.”
By getting the guy to say “yeah, it’s easier to get quiet and say ‘I dunno’ after being yelled at”, NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM RELATED TO REACTOR 4 BLOWING UP WAS SOLVED.
The problem of the lead was temporarily solved, though. He no longer had to report that reactor 4 blew up.
Anyway, let’s assume solely for the sake of argument, that there was a lab leak due to insufficient protocol or benign neglect of protocol or malicious neglect of protocol. Just for the sake of argument.
How different are the various team leads and managers and project managers and whatnot in charge of the Virology Institute from the ones at Chernobyl?
How much truth was communicated between the lower levels and the middle levels? How much made it from the middle to upper?Report
The bigger question is how do we deal with events that might emanate from such a system? Honest reporting would work in a system where berating the source is not the first option, which is what we had in the spring of 2020.Report
But we had a weird situation where people who were talking about whether it was a lab leak were berated.
And not just by the scientists who argued for the wet market, but by journalists.
It’s weird.Report
Are you asking how do we reform a bureaucracy, or how do we reform a bureaucracy in a totalitarian state? Those are very different questions.Report
How we reform journalism in a non-bureaucratic state.Report
I don’t know if the problems in journalism had any effect on the events of the last three years. I’m pretty sure the way journalists handled the lab leak theory had no effect. The people who are inclined to believe journalists believed them, and those who are inclined otherwise never trusted them anyway. I’ve said it before, you can’t describe modern journalism without using some form of the verb “to beclown”, but I don’t think it had an impact.Report
Really? Because I see the whole issue of how this stuff is covered as making things worse, it deepens rifts, and makes the potential for the next time to be worse more likely.Report
I suppose that the real root of the problem is here:
Report
Yes and no. As I said to March above I think it is still possible the press could have missed this even without the distortion effect of the Donald. I’d like to think that absent that they would have been a little more curious about the conflicts of interest. However the press having a bit of a blind spot when it comes to well intended public institutions and credentialed scientists that work for them predates the current iteration of ‘in this house we belive’ culture war.Report
That is not at all germane to the topic you brought up. I thought we were discussing how to get people at the source to be open.Report
I think it is germane. You know the managers who were yelling “Are you stupid? Reactor 4 couldn’t have exploded! Explain it to me! Explain it!”?
The people in the peanut gallery who were yelling “Yeah! Stupid! Explain it!” were also making things worse.
And also making it harder to be open in the future.
I see that as *EXCEPTIONALLY* germane.Report
The Chinese were able to get away with silence because the worldwide press and experts weren’t asking questions? The Chinese never give answers.Report
A fact which no amount of journalistic reform in the US will resolve.Report
Yeah, that was my point.Report
I’m not sure what the hang-up here is… NIH and Ecohealth are engaged with WIV. Part of the grant process is all of the underlying safety protocols and compliance with various standards etc.
The proper route for oversight, both public and journalistic, is to pull those threads back to US sources to answer for the delegated compliance.
If WIV can’t/won’t comply with Ecohealth (sponsor) requests and If Ecohealth can’t comply with NIH requests which can’t comply with Congressional oversight requests… then the grant process has a de facto problem with compliance.
Instead, Ecohealth (via Draszak) labeled any attempt at compliance as Conspiracy theories, and the NIH declined knowledge of funding WIV via Ecohealth, and other sundry things that have only belatedly come out – not least of which was a request for GoF research on Bat Coronavirus research which was rejected. Because, as it turns out, there’s a considerable scientific lack of consensus around whether GoF should be done at all. Which only comes to light as the ‘conspiracy theorists’ keep pushing for answers.
The role of journalism in our society and this sort of model is to remain curious (and appropriately skeptical) of the narrative – especially when things like leading scientists with ties to WIV are in the forefront of calling any investigation into WIV a Conspiracy Theory… and to continue pulling on the thread of oversight/compliance as it leads back through public documents to NIAID and NIH.
A very mundane outcome could be that Ecohealth/NIH were caught off-guard by events which revealed (or were going to reveal) that they continued to fund research at a facility that the WaPo had reported on in 2017 as having issues in Bio-Safety. Rolling up the approval chain of these failures in compliance would be career ending for the researchers and the NIH approvers.
The stakes are very, very high for NIH researchers and the NIH itself if poor oversight of a known Lab with bio-safety records accidentally caused the death of 68M people. That’s kinda the story and the role of journalism to check the checkers.Report
Let me answer this way: from the stories I’ve heard about dealing with Chinese business, it’s widely accepted that nothing is said or signed in good faith. There is no expectation of honesty, only a bet that you’ll make a profit. I doubt that the Chinese government is more honest.
Jaybird assumes that the press has a role to play in calling this out. And he’s right that a functioning press would. But I don’t see how it would have affected the outcome after Day One, and the world community isn’t willing to write off China. Jaybird called the people who should have protested “the peanut gallery”, and if you’re totalitarian, you can treat everyone like a peanut.Report
I gotcha. Yeah, that’s the problem with figuring out if ‘mistakes were made’ – changes would have to be made. And making changes potentially impacts people and institutions; sometimes in ways that the people and institutions, who coincidentally inhabited the spaces where the mistakes happened to occur, might not find comfortable.
That’s why I’m a little surprised at people not seeing the fact that China stonewalling any sort of audit/investigation is a reason to change our laws/guidelines with regards funding research in Chinese labs.
Doesn’t change the outcome of the pandemic, but an unreliable partner is an unreliable partner you shouldn’t collaborate with. That’s on us.Report
Counter factuals are by their nature speculative but I think but for Trump it is at least possible the press would’ve handled it differently, with a different outcome for the politics of the situation. One of the things totally lost in the fog is that in the early days of covid, before all of the shutdowns, Trump was attempting and I believe actually did negotiate a deal with the Chinese to export a bunch of agricultural products to help with the balance of trade. Trump wanted to sell this as a win and at that time was defending the competence of the Chinese to avoid tanking the deal.
There’s a very obvious story in there of ‘president looks the other way on brewing crisis in China for political reasons at home.’ The problem is that by then the press had gone totally off the rails in how it covered the administration. Trump then of course flips the script when he realizes this thing is real and jeopardizing his chances of re-election. At that point the coverage goes all in on hysterics about anti-Asian racism, and ‘moral clarity’ about the ‘science’ and the obvious rightness of deeply personally invested experts from the permanent bureaucracy.
Now, totally possible that even in a normal administration the press handles this in a similar way. The NIH and Fauci are the types of organizations and people for which legacy media has a natural sympathy. But I don’t think it’s a certainty.Report
Upthread you were advocating for the people crying out lab leak with no supporting evidence. Which way do you want it?Report
The only way he ever wants it.Report
That we not flippity-flop back and forth between “nobody knows what happened!” and “it was the wet market and you need to prove that it wasn’t!” and “anybody who thinks that the Virus Institute was involved is a conspiracy theorist!”
At least not in the same friggin conversation.Report
In the above case we’re discussing people opining on the situation. In the below case we have actual people in the ground, dealing with facts. Equating the 2 is nonsensical.Report
1. Nobody does know what happened.
2. The dominant theory among those who know what they’re talking about was and remains the wet market theory. That may change one of these days, but it’s the current state of play.
3. Nobody stopped anyone from looking into the lab leak theory. Many people did so and brought forward whatever they thought they had.
4. Anyone who challenges the dominant theory of anything will get a skeptical reception unless they bring the receipts. That’s pretty much the defining characteristic of a dominant theory.
5. Believing the lab leak theory doesn’t make you a conspiracy theorist, but being a conspiracy theorist would incline you to the lab leak theory and many of the theory’s proponents were, in fact, conspiracy theorists. In deciding what to spend time looking at, that is a legitimate filtering device.
See? It’s not at all hard to say all these things coherently in one friggin conversation.Report
1 will most likely be all we ever get.Report
Thanks for this.Report
First they berated the Infowars guy, and I said nothing for I was not a friggin lunatic.
Then they berated the President for recommending that we eat horsepaste and I said nothing because, as previously mentioned, I am not a friggin lunatic.
Then they berated the Polimath guy for stating that Covid deaths would never rise above 5,000 and I said nothing because I am not an innumerate imbecile.
Then they berated the Barrington people and the natural immunity people and people saying that masks don’t work and I said nothing because, as I keep saying, I am not a friggin lunatic or imbecile.
Then they finally came out and said that no one is really sure where Covid came from and I said, then why the hell are all these lunatics and imbeciles still talking? Isn’t there a FEMA camp or something?Report
Then they berated the Department of Energy and I said nothing for it was not my lane.
Then they berated my confidence and I said nothing for it was low.
BUT, the low confidence zoonotic spread, they berated not.
Then they berated the FBI and I said nothing for their confidence was medium.
Then they berated things that have nothing to do with anything ever uttered anywhere and I said nothing because narratives are about memes and the Left can’t meme.Report
From here, it looks like Chernobyl administrators were actively avoiding facts and berating the people responsible for providing them.
it’s there that I see the criticism of the coverage as having teeth.Report
Do we have the equivalent from WIV administrators?Report
Does the Chinese Government itself count?
Or do you already know about them and your question is narrow and only talking about the administrators of the lab?Report
I would say they count. I’m not aware of any lab leak denial from them, though I don’t doubt it exists.
I’m not sure where that leaves us in the discussion, however. It’s probably axiomatic they’d issue a denial.Report
I’m not sure where that leaves us in the discussion
It depends on what you were hoping for when you asked “Do we have the equivalent from WIV administrators?”
Here are a couple of stories about the theory that it started in a US army base.
But if you want the *GOOD* stuff, you have to get it from the horse’s mouth. This is a press release from the Chinese Embassy:
That stuff is just *chef’s kiss*.Report
Jaybird, nobody knows what DID happen, but we know what DEFINITELY DIDN’T happen, and one thing that definitely didn’t happen that was the (inexcusably silly and racist) suggestion that people eating traditional Chinese food somehow caused a global pandemic.Report
MSN is not helping:
I didn’t know that the FBI has held this opinion “for quite some time now”.
The fact that the lab leak theory is seen as something that would “discredit” China is weird. Like, is that an accurate assessment?
Because I’m comparing it to the Wet Market theory and I’m not seeing a whole lot of additional credit there.Report
There are good reasons to not cover stories but this is not one of them.
Report
Fauci makes the point that there are a lot of kinds of “lab leaks” and just because someone in a lab might have spread it, it doesn’t mean that Covid was ENGINEERED TO BE A BIOWEAPON.
So the bioweapon talking point shouldn’t be used at all.
Jump ahead to about 8:15 if you want to see Fauci explain this, as if to a slow child.Report
Heh, there’s the exit strategy… Sure, it could be a Lab Leak, but we were doing our duty to suppress the idea that it was an Engineered BIO-WEAPON… by suppressing the Lab Leak. Another Noble Lie in defense of ‘science’.
Honestly, the No BIO-WEAPON Defense talk was what first alerted me to the dissembling… *they* were the ones who wanted to conflated Bio-Weapon with Lab Leak — not the other way around.Report