On the origin of COVID-19

The only thing that has really changed on the question of the origin of the novel coronavirus, how COVID-19 spread to humans, really, since early in the pandemic, is that the media narrative has shifted towards placing a greater weight on the “lab leak” hypothesis, specifically that the virus may have been released accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.^[1] The trouble is that a World Health Organization (WHO) report on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is less than convincing, in part because the Chinese have allegedly been less than fully cooperative,^[2] and that scientists have not found an intermediate species that would have spread the disease to humans.^[3]

The authors . . . ranked each of four possible scenarios on a scale from “extremely unlikely” to “very likely.”

After considering information, data and samples presented by the Chinese members of the team, the authors concluded the likelihood that the virus jumped from a source animal to an intermediary species and then to humans was “likely to very likely,” while an introduction due to an accidental laboratory leak was deemed “extremely unlikely.”

Other potential pathways the investigators considered were a direct jump from animal to human without an intermediate host (“possible to likely”) and transmission from the surface of frozen food products (“possible”).^[4]

One problem with the “lab leak” hypothesis is that it was initially advocated by the xenophobic generally, anti-Asian specifically, and conspiracy theory-mongering Donald Trump.^[5] But it’s never been ruled out because a direct animal source or intermediate species, possibly at a wet market in Wuhan, has never been positively identified.^[6] Further, the failure to identify such a species is attracting suspicion.^[7]

If the public were less credulous, we might have learned by now to treat an absence of information as just that, a lack of information. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is exactly what it is.

Instead, “Republican Florida Representative Matt Gaetz has said that, regarding the global COVID-19 pandemic, national infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘has blood on his hands, and now the entire country knows it.’” How does this jackass—yes, I mean Gaetz—reach such an outlandish conclusion? Apparently, Fauci authorized funding for research at the Wuhan Institute.^[8]

We still do not know the origin of the coronavirus, let alone, that in fact the Wuhan Institute is in any way responsible. But Gaetz is peddling a conspiracy theory that the federal government is trying to cover up the knowledge he alleges exists.^[9]

This kind of thing gets really, really old. I see it with atheists who are convinced that science proves that there is no god.^[10] I see it with the “classified” but twisted evidence that took us to war on Iraq.^[11] And now I see it with the “lab leak” hypothesis.

There is a reason that positivism incorporates peer review in its process; it originated with public witnessing of experiments. The idea is that we know how a conclusion is reached and should be able to replicate those results ourselves.^[12] What’s going on here with the coronavirus is not that. It’s speculation based on an absence of information taken as certainty.

Which is pure bullshit and deserves nothing less than to be called out as such.

1. ^[1]Helen Davidson, “WHO says it has no evidence to support ‘speculative’ Covid-19 lab theory,” Guardian, May 4, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/who-says-it-has-no-evidence-to-support-speculative-covid-19-lab-theory-pushed-by-us; Deborah Netburn, “Did the coronavirus escape from a lab? The idea deserves a second look, scientists say,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-05-13/did-coronavirus-escape-from-lab-scientists-urge-second-look; Matthew Rozsa, “A virologist unpacks the lab leak hypothesis,” Salon, May 29, 2021, https://www.salon.com/2021/05/29/a-virologist-unpacks-the-lab-leak-hypothesis/; Joby Warrick et al., “Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release,” Washington Post, April 30 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab-conducted-extensive-research-on-deadly-bat-viruses-but-there-is-no-evidence-of-accidental-release/2020/04/30/3e5d12a0-8b0d-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html↩
2. ^[2]Deborah Netburn, “Did the coronavirus escape from a lab? The idea deserves a second look, scientists say,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-05-13/did-coronavirus-escape-from-lab-scientists-urge-second-look↩
3. ^[3]Matthew Rozsa, “A virologist unpacks the lab leak hypothesis,” Salon, May 29, 2021, https://www.salon.com/2021/05/29/a-virologist-unpacks-the-lab-leak-hypothesis/↩
4. ^[4]Deborah Netburn, “Did the coronavirus escape from a lab? The idea deserves a second look, scientists say,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-05-13/did-coronavirus-escape-from-lab-scientists-urge-second-look↩
5. ^[5]Helen Davidson, “WHO says it has no evidence to support ‘speculative’ Covid-19 lab theory,” Guardian, May 4, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/who-says-it-has-no-evidence-to-support-speculative-covid-19-lab-theory-pushed-by-us↩
6. ^[6]Helen Davidson, “WHO says it has no evidence to support ‘speculative’ Covid-19 lab theory,” Guardian, May 4, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/who-says-it-has-no-evidence-to-support-speculative-covid-19-lab-theory-pushed-by-us; Deborah Netburn, “Did the coronavirus escape from a lab? The idea deserves a second look, scientists say,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-05-13/did-coronavirus-escape-from-lab-scientists-urge-second-look; Matthew Rozsa, “A virologist unpacks the lab leak hypothesis,” Salon, May 29, 2021, https://www.salon.com/2021/05/29/a-virologist-unpacks-the-lab-leak-hypothesis/; Joby Warrick et al., “Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release,” Washington Post, April 30 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab-conducted-extensive-research-on-deadly-bat-viruses-but-there-is-no-evidence-of-accidental-release/2020/04/30/3e5d12a0-8b0d-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html↩
7. ^[7]Matthew Rozsa, “A virologist unpacks the lab leak hypothesis,” Salon, May 29, 2021, https://www.salon.com/2021/05/29/a-virologist-unpacks-the-lab-leak-hypothesis/↩
8. ^[8]Daniel Villarreal, “Matt Gaetz Says Anthony Fauci ‘Has Blood on His Hands, And Now the Country Knows It,’” Newsweek, June 4, 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-says-anthony-fauci-has-blood-his-hands-now-country-knows-it-1597853↩
9. ^[9]Daniel Villarreal, “Matt Gaetz Says Anthony Fauci ‘Has Blood on His Hands, And Now the Country Knows It,’” Newsweek, June 4, 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-says-anthony-fauci-has-blood-his-hands-now-country-knows-it-1597853↩
10. ^[10]David Benfell, “Agnosticism, Atheism, and Theodicy: Yours truly the blasphemer,” Not Housebroken, May 31, 2021, https://disunitedstates.org/2021/05/31/agnosticism-atheism-and-theodicy-yours-truly-the-blasphemer/↩
11. ^[11]Mark Danner, The Secret Way to War: The Downing Street Memo and the Iraq War’s Buried History (New York: New York Review, 2006).↩
12. ^[12]Bruce Mazlish, Uncertain Sciences (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007).↩