That's exactly the kind of unsubstantiated statements I see all the time (both from proponents of the lab leak theory and from opponents). I'd love to read the actual reasoning why virologists think that it's nonsense. I'm a bit sad that hacker is so full of political and over-simplified arguments for this topic, and the actual science is missing.
From my point of view, the lab-leak hypothesis is presented in a political way and not a scientific way, so it's hard to challenge scientifically.
This is my genuine scientific take, having worked in a genome lab:
If the virus was artificially engineered, then you might expect to see points of artificial cleavage in the genome (which I assume you don't, because that would have been identified by now and would be presented as strong scientific evidence for lab origin).
If the virus were stored and allowed to mutate naturally but in a lab, then it might look very much like any naturally-occurring virus, but in lab conditions it seems likely (probabilistically 'almost certain') to evolve in the direction of reduced infectiousness. So, this also seems unlikely.
Deliberately engineering a human-infectious virus to appear natural is theoretically possible, but it seems to me that it would have to be deliberate - and is far beyond our current public understanding of science. So, I'd expect the cost to be astronomical. One lab or one group of scientists privately working on this doesn't seem to be enough.
The fact that this coronavirus transfers so easily to and between other species (and mink in particular) suggests that it has cross-species potential, and therefore cross-species origin. It suggests that this virus doesn't have any particular connection to humans.
Like any scientist, I'm prepared to accept that it's not impossible. Indeed, I have laid out three routes in this comment. But, the arguments for a lab-leak it are not scientifically convincing, to me, and it seems vanishingly unlikely. I haven't seen any hint of evidence that would make me sit up and pay attention.
> From my point of view, the lab-leak hypothesis is presented in a political way and not a scientific way, so it's hard to challenge scientifically.
I think my problem is that I'm looking for a detailed analysis of a possible scenario, but the more I read it seems the lab leak theory is not a single theory, but rather a large number of possible scenarios without supporting evidence for any of them.
So asking for a detailed scientific analysis is kind of hard, because you'd have to look at dozens of possible scenarios, and evaluate each of them separately.
The main reasons why virologists think the idea of a lab leak is nonsense:
* Nothing in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly surprising. All the elements of the virus (including the furin cleavage site) are commonly found in other coronaviruses.
* Every novel virus in history has been the result of spillover from animals. Just in the last 20 years alone, two novel coronaviruses have spilled over into humans: SARS and MERS. SARS-related coronaviruses are circulating in bat and other animal populations throughout China and Southeast Asia, and millions of people come into regular contact with these animal populations. These millions of people are not trained researchers wearing protective gear and undergoing regular testing for infection. Literally millions of people are constantly exposed at much higher levels than researchers.
* There is not a single shred of evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic. None. On the other hand, there's good evidence that they didn't have it. They publish the genomes of viruses they find (such as the now-famous RaTG13, which they published in 2016), and SARS-CoV-2 is not among them.
* The Wuhan Institute of Virology has only ever isolated three SARS-related coronaviruses, and it has published extensively on them. All three of them are only distantly related to SARS-CoV-2. All the gain-of-function conspiracy theories require SARS-CoV-2 to have been secretly isolated in a lab, which is a very difficult and time-consuming task, without anyone being informed, without anything being published, and without any of the many people who would know about this (very likely including foreign scientists) spilling the beans.
* The Wuhan Institute of Virology, just like all other well-run high-security labs, regularly tests its workers for signs of infection. If lab workers had been infected, they would be seropositive. The lab-leak conspiracy theory requires the lab to be lying about its testing results.
That's exactly the kind of unsubstantiated statements I see all the time (both from proponents of the lab leak theory and from opponents). I'd love to read the actual reasoning why virologists think that it's nonsense. I'm a bit sad that hacker is so full of political and over-simplified arguments for this topic, and the actual science is missing.