Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:54, 28 November 2023 editSennalen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,089 edits →First sentences: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:10, 28 November 2023 edit undoජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,484 edits →First sentences Tag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:
	::What is concerning about the categorical statements made above as attempted "principles" for editing this content is the way they can be immediately repurposed to allow for ] ]. This is not the only time this account has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. Since this is a ], we need to be vigilant about this and if that sort of advocacy continues, we need to ask for help from ]. ] (]) 12:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)		::What is concerning about the categorical statements made above as attempted "principles" for editing this content is the way they can be immediately repurposed to allow for ] ]. This is not the only time this account has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. Since this is a ], we need to be vigilant about this and if that sort of advocacy continues, we need to ask for help from ]. ] (]) 12:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::If you think this and that are "accepted", add the sources that agree with you rather than removing sources that you disagree with. If you do not want to stick to sources because you don't like the points of view contained, that is ]. ] (]) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)		:::If you think this and that are "accepted", add the sources that agree with you rather than removing sources that you disagree with. If you do not want to stick to sources because you don't like the points of view contained, that is ]. ] (]) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::Again, you have been warned. Continue down this path at your own risk. Your snow job above demonstrates nothing vis-a-vis the attempted railroading of discussion by posting an "uncertainty monster" principle. We're cleaning up the article now. You're welcome to offer higher-quality sources or work with what we've got. ] (]) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

	== Definition of zoonosis ==		== Definition of zoonosis ==

Revision as of 15:10, 28 November 2023

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

COVID-19 Unassessed Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page created

A page dedicated to zoonotic theories seemed neccessary to give attention to the full breadth and depth of the subject. This aims at a deeper level of detail, which more general articles like SARS-CoV-2 and Origin of Covid-19 can refer to in WP:SUMMARY style. This should especially be an improvement on the situation where the COVID-19 lab leak theory is the only article with scope to discuss the evidence for zoonosis in detail. This article is carried almost entirely by scientific peer-reviewed journals. Significant non-scientific viewpoints have been raised in a brief addendum. This contrasts with most other articles in the topic area, where WP:MEDPOP and even less qualified sources have been relied on for core facts and framing. I hope that this article will serve as a positive example for good practices around WP:NPOV, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:DESCF throughout the COVID-19 topic area and open scientific questions in general. Sennalen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

CFORK or POVFORK?

This article does not look to me to be a properly executed WP:CFORK and instead seems to be closer to a WP:POVFORK. I encourage discussion of the issues outlined here and at the relevant thread on WP:FTN to address this matter. I will refrain from posting AfD until this is worked out, but that is another option, of course. jps (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:DETAIL companion to Origin of Covid-19. There is long-standing precedent for this kind of treatment, in the form of the parallel page: COVID-19 lab leak theory. It is not appropriate for a minority view to have a detailed treatment and the majority view not to. A link and summary should be integrated into the parent page, following WP:SUMMARY style. Per WP:SYNC it is appropriate to add material at child articles before parent articles. It is not a POV fork, because it is written from a neutral point of view and does not deviate in any significant way from the views described in the parent page. The parent article text should be updated in due course with extracts from this, more detailed and up-to-date, treatment. Sennalen (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think that COVID-19 lab leak theory is a "parallel" page, I think you need to clarify. That page is one that talks about a set of distinct minority reports and conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19. This page is about how COVID-19 formed in animals. There is not a strong comparison to be made between the two, in my estimation.

I think what you are missing is the WP:SPINOUT approach. In the instance where information is not present in higher-level articles, it is often better to start there lest you run into POV-fork situations. Given some of the rhetorical approaches you are proposing here, I would argue that you are minimally at risk of running into this problem which is why merging back may be better. We can always spin-out later.

jps (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a method for dealing with an existing article with a length or due weight problem, but it's not a mandatory process for article creation. We could bulk copy this article into the middle of a different article to create the problems that necessitate SPINOUT, but it would be less trouble to address your concerns about rhetorical approach in situ. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is mandatory at Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying that your approach is wrong. I'm saying it may run into problems. You are free to do with that information what you will. jps (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I support a merge. Origins of COVID-19 has a weight issue, because it gives more space to lab theories, and mainly focuses on a side issue (investigations). And in terms of WP:FRINGE, even a CFORK should be avoided; the majority view (zoonosis) belongs in the main article, not its own article. A merge would fix both of these. DFlhb (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

First sentences

I'm open to revisions, but there are two considerations that should take overriding priority:

MOS:FIRST should be followed.
The origin of Covid-19 is unknown. A scientific consensus about what is likely, plausible, or parsimonious is not sufficient to say that something is the origin in wikivoice without qualifiers.

Sennalen (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A blanket declaration like (2) is essentially an antiscience, post-modernist POV that, like, nothing can really ever be known, dude. That more-or-less matches a WP:PROFRINGE POV. Is that your intention? Because, for example, we know a lot of facts about the origin of COVID-19, so it is manifestly false to say its "origin" (inasmuch as one can identify "origin" as a precise term) is "unknown". jps (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an abstract debate about the philosophy of science. WP:STICKTOSOURCE There is particular evidence that most people would accept as conclusive proof - namely, an ancestral sequence and/or an infected animal. To date those have not been found, and they may never be found. It is not mandatory that the answer to any question becomes known after a certain amount of effort has been expended on answering it. The language of best sources - like those cited here - is that the origin is believed, suspected, likely, etc., but many of them also say explicity, "unknown." Sennalen (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Footnotes with direct quotes from sources saying precisely these things were on the version prior to your edits in anticipation of precisely this argument. Sennalen (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The arguments you are making categorically do not even comport with the reliable sources you are pretending to represent. There is no source which says anything like (2). jps (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at the first source that was removed, the quote is: "the proximal phylogenetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 and its mode of introduction into human circulation remain unclear".

Surely that supports "(2) The origin of Covid-19 is unknown".

I haven't looked at the other sources. - Palpable (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I went back through the papers cited here and looked for anything that looked like a summary statement about the origin of the virus. Several did not, particularly those with a molecular focus. News sources were not included.

There are four sources that describe it as flat out unknown. Five say it "likely" came from animals, or with similar qualifiers. Seven give no indication they considered a non-animal origin but stressed the uncertainty about what animal it could have been. Two seemed very sure it was bats. In general, caution and circumspection go hand in hand with scientific integrity rather than opposing it. I believe this review strongly supports using appropriate qualifiers on summary claims. Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A review of sources.
(Bolding is mine) Unknown The origin of SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mode of introduction into the human population, is currently unknown. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain. The natural or accidental origin of SARS-CoV2 remains an unsolved conundrum. The initial outbreak of human cases of the virus was connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, and while related viruses have been found in horseshoe bats and pangolins, their divergence represents decades of evolution leaving the direct origin of the pandemic unknown. Probably animals The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still hotly debated and there is no dispositive proof of whether the virus started its spread after a single or multiple zoonotic events or if the virus ‘escaped’ from a research laboratory through accidental exposure or breach of safety protocols. So far, zoonotic emergence is considered the most likely option by some scientists Great efforts have been undertaken worldwide to trace the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but it remains elusive when and where SARS-CoV-2 originated. The current consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that a lab leak was the source of the pandemic virus . Instead, many studies have supported the view that SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin and evolved in nature (...) Despite the zoonotic signatures observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it remains unclear how this virus was transmitted from animals to human populations. (...) Bats are common natural hosts for CoVs, supporting that SARS-CoV-2 likely had a bat origin. SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to SARS-CoV, which caused a more limited outbreak in several countries in 2003 (Peiris et al., 2003; Rota et al., 2003); however, several bat- and pangolin-derived viruses are even more closely related to SARS-CoV-2, indicative of a zoonotic origin All previous human coronaviruses have zoonotic origins, as have the vast majority of human viruses. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 bears several signatures of these prior zoonotic events. (...) As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. (...) We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Furin cleavage sites in spike proteins naturally occurred independently for multiple times in coronaviruses. Such feature of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not necessarily a product of manual intervention, though our observation does not rule out the lab-engineered scenario. Animal but not sure which SARS-CoV-2 was speculated to have originated in bats and then jump to the human population via an intermediate animal host . Although viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2, such as BANAL-20-52 derived from the Malayan horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus malayanus), RaTG13 derived from the intermediate horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis), and Pangolin‐CoV present in Malayan pangolins (Manis avania) have been identified, at present the exact animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear. Because the question of the original host or animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unresolved, identifying other animals that are highly susceptible to this virus infection is an important task for pandemic control and prevention. The animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown despite reports of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in Asian Rhinolophus bats1,2,3,4, including the closest virus from R. affinis, RaTG13 (refs. 5,6), and pangolins7,8,9. The novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that recently emerged in China is thought to have a bat origin, as its closest known relative (BatCoV RaTG13) was described previously in horseshoe bats. The most probable explanation for the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into humans involves zoonotic jumps from as-yet-undetermined, intermediate host animals at the Huanan market Bats are considered as the likely source of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as a rich diversity of SARS-related (or SARS-like) viruses have been identified in several bat species. Notably, a bat coronavirus named BatCoV-RaTG13 has been identified as being most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 on a genomic level with a remarkable 96% sequence identity (Zhou et al., 2020b). To date, the direct precursor of SARS-CoV-2 and the involvement of an intermediate host in the emergence of the human virus remain to be identified, and there has been much attention drawn to the origin of the virus. As such, it may be argued that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-1 has never been identified. Although in contrast to the situation for SARS-CoV-2, viral strains with near-perfect whole-genome sequence identity have been isolated from captive Himalayan palm civets (Paguma larvata) and a raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) . These observations led to the hypothesis that a carnivore may have acted as an intermediate host in the jump of SARS-CoV-1 into humans . Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there were suggestions that pangolins (Manis javanica) could have acted as an intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 . However, current evidence does not indicate that an established reservoir outside of bats may have been required for the host jump into humans (Fig. 2). Certain it's bats The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats Our analyses, based on public data, provide compelling evidence that during this time window SARS-CoV-2 evolved in a host environment highly similar, if not identical, to other five bat coronaviruses Honorable mention There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2 Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A review of sources.

(Bolding is mine)

Unknown

The origin of SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mode of introduction into the human population, is currently unknown.
SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain.
The natural or accidental origin of SARS-CoV2 remains an unsolved conundrum.
The initial outbreak of human cases of the virus was connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, and while related viruses have been found in horseshoe bats and pangolins, their divergence represents decades of evolution leaving the direct origin of the pandemic unknown.

Probably animals

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still hotly debated and there is no dispositive proof of whether the virus started its spread after a single or multiple zoonotic events or if the virus ‘escaped’ from a research laboratory through accidental exposure or breach of safety protocols. So far, zoonotic emergence is considered the most likely option by some scientists
Great efforts have been undertaken worldwide to trace the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but it remains elusive when and where SARS-CoV-2 originated. The current consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that a lab leak was the source of the pandemic virus . Instead, many studies have supported the view that SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin and evolved in nature (...) Despite the zoonotic signatures observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it remains unclear how this virus was transmitted from animals to human populations. (...) Bats are common natural hosts for CoVs, supporting that SARS-CoV-2 likely had a bat origin.
SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to SARS-CoV, which caused a more limited outbreak in several countries in 2003 (Peiris et al., 2003; Rota et al., 2003); however, several bat- and pangolin-derived viruses are even more closely related to SARS-CoV-2, indicative of a zoonotic origin
All previous human coronaviruses have zoonotic origins, as have the vast majority of human viruses. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 bears several signatures of these prior zoonotic events. (...) As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. (...) We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade.
Furin cleavage sites in spike proteins naturally occurred independently for multiple times in coronaviruses. Such feature of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not necessarily a product of manual intervention, though our observation does not rule out the lab-engineered scenario.

Animal but not sure which

SARS-CoV-2 was speculated to have originated in bats and then jump to the human population via an intermediate animal host . Although viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2, such as BANAL-20-52 derived from the Malayan horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus malayanus), RaTG13 derived from the intermediate horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis), and Pangolin‐CoV present in Malayan pangolins (Manis avania) have been identified, at present the exact animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.
Because the question of the original host or animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unresolved, identifying other animals that are highly susceptible to this virus infection is an important task for pandemic control and prevention.
The animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown despite reports of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in Asian Rhinolophus bats1,2,3,4, including the closest virus from R. affinis, RaTG13 (refs. 5,6), and pangolins7,8,9.
The novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that recently emerged in China is thought to have a bat origin, as its closest known relative (BatCoV RaTG13) was described previously in horseshoe bats.
The most probable explanation for the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into humans involves zoonotic jumps from as-yet-undetermined, intermediate host animals at the Huanan market
Bats are considered as the likely source of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as a rich diversity of SARS-related (or SARS-like) viruses have been identified in several bat species. Notably, a bat coronavirus named BatCoV-RaTG13 has been identified as being most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 on a genomic level with a remarkable 96% sequence identity (Zhou et al., 2020b). To date, the direct precursor of SARS-CoV-2 and the involvement of an intermediate host in the emergence of the human virus remain to be identified, and there has been much attention drawn to the origin of the virus.
As such, it may be argued that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-1 has never been identified. Although in contrast to the situation for SARS-CoV-2, viral strains with near-perfect whole-genome sequence identity have been isolated from captive Himalayan palm civets (Paguma larvata) and a raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) . These observations led to the hypothesis that a carnivore may have acted as an intermediate host in the jump of SARS-CoV-1 into humans . Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there were suggestions that pangolins (Manis javanica) could have acted as an intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 . However, current evidence does not indicate that an established reservoir outside of bats may have been required for the host jump into humans (Fig. 2).

Certain it's bats

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats
Our analyses, based on public data, provide compelling evidence that during this time window SARS-CoV-2 evolved in a host environment highly similar, if not identical, to other five bat coronaviruses

Honorable mention

There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2

Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The precise origin may be unknown but it's accepted that it's zoonotic, and it is also accepted that some other notions (e.g. bioweaponry, bioengineering, asteroid debris, 5G masts) are conspiracy theories or just nonsense. Content on zoonotic origin should be on just that, and not start sidling up to the FRINGE stuff which is already covered elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What is concerning about the categorical statements made above as attempted "principles" for editing this content is the way they can be immediately repurposed to allow for WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. This is not the only time this account has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. Since this is a WP:CTOP, we need to be vigilant about this and if that sort of advocacy continues, we need to ask for help from WP:AE. jps (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this and that are "accepted", add the sources that agree with you rather than removing sources that you disagree with. If you do not want to stick to sources because you don't like the points of view contained, that is WP:NOTHERE. Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you have been warned. Continue down this path at your own risk. Your snow job above demonstrates nothing vis-a-vis the attempted railroading of discussion by posting an "uncertainty monster" principle. We're cleaning up the article now. You're welcome to offer higher-quality sources or work with what we've got. jps (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition of zoonosis

Zoonosis is an ambiguous term. In colloquial usage, zoonosis is the opposite of lab-leak. But in more technical sources, zoonosis just refers to having a natural ancestor. For example, the SAGO report asserts a zoonotic origin while acknowledging the possibility of a research-related spillover.

This matters because everybody agrees that SARS-CoV-2 originated with a bat virus and therefore had a zoonotic origin at some point. Yet the proximal origin is highly controversial. Confusion around the definition of zoonosis muddies the waters.

It would be best if Misplaced Pages divided the possible origins by spillover location: natural, market, or research-related. But if this article is named for zoonosis, the ambiguous meaning of zoonosis should be clarified in the lede. - Palpable (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of precision and welcome suggestions of better titles. Sennalen (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We are left with the article topic as presented. Thus, I have changed the title of this article to reflect that. jps (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tobias chop

Yikes. Focusing this much on one source is absurd. Tobias is a self-admitted FOIA advocate, but it seems to me that his bias is apparent from his various arguments. While better than some of the more rabid Lab Leak conspiracy theorists in terms of care of analysis, there is still something reminiscent of Climategate going on here where people are deliberately misinterpreting e-mails between scientists as somehow indicative of a conspiracy. Basically the origin point of a conspiracy theory. The early concerns over certain genomic features have been conclusively put to bed, and this entire thing is a distraction from the subject of this article anyway. Yikes! jps (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it a terrible source for an article apparently about a serious scientific topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: