Covid Wuhan Lab Leak or Wet Market - which is the real conspiracy theory? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

On my walk today, I had an insight into the Covid lab leak theory, which I never really thought about before. It revolves around the statistical probability of the creation of the virus at that specific point in time in human history verses the proximity of the Wuhan lab to the outbreak.

Imagine a line that represents the length of human history. In your mind, imagine the Start line below being another 1,000 times this length, but I can't fit that on the page! So pretend it goes way off the left edge of the screen.

Human history:

Start-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Today


Next we have the period in history where Covid research was being done in the Wuhan lab.

Start---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Research-------------------Today


Then we have the point where Covid appeared in Wuhan.

Start------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Covid--------------------Today

Edit: By Start, I mean the start of humans, not Covid.

To me, when you have a very long line (1,000x the above) and yet the appearance of Covid happens right next to a lab that is studying Covid viruses at that point in time in human history, it seems more than correlation and more than coincidence. If you consider the number of respiratory viruses that affect humans, we have flu and colds. Yes, there are some others, but these are the seasonal common ones. And yet we now have another.

Considering the length of time humans have been around, and we have two major respiratory viruses, to have a third appear next to a lab studying these type of viruses seems way more than coincidence.

So, I ask you, when people refer to the Wuhan lab leak as a conspiracy theory, how do they know that the wet market explanation is not infact the conspiracy theory? Who decides which is the conspiracy theory and which is not? FaceBook? Twitter? The government?

 

[Steve R.]

The "wet market" theory would appear to be more of a conspiracy based on the simple premise that it would require an existing biological source (animal/plant?) and none has not been identified. A biological source of AIDS for example has been identified, but not for Covid. Have any existing contaminated biological samples been found containing the Covid virus? To my knowledge, none have been found.

 

[GaP42]

Flawed logic/ maths if you consider the labs doing work with covid viruses - not just at the time of the covid outbreak but at any time.
I cannot provide a number - there were a number, and now obscured by how many more now.

 

[Jon]

Flawed logic/ maths if you consider the labs doing work with covid viruses - not just at the time of the covid outbreak but at any time.
I cannot provide a number - there were a number, and now obscured by how many more now.

I don't understand, what is flawed and why?

 

[Steve R.]

As an additional thought. Who were the first to get sick?

• Where they lab workers and their close associates (family)?
• Where they wet market vendors/customers?

 

[GaP42]

You have presented it as an unlikely coincidence - which implies probability. Probability is based on considering the occurrence of events. You have one event - the event that gave rise to COVID 19. The other event being implied as the source is a lab working with coronaviruses. There were other labs besides the Wuhan lab working with coronaviruses, and for a number of years. So, while not getting into what specifically they were doing, each of those labs for the period of time they worked with coronavirus prior to its appearance as a human transmissible virus, could have been a source. Chat GPT gives 6-7 notale labs working the coronavirus at the time. Not sure how accurate, but ...
Then of course it does not analyse the other side: the likelihood of events in which infected animals having a strain of coronavirus coming in contact with humans with a strain that jumped to humans - how many animals (carrying infection/endemic), how many wet markets, ...

 

[Jon]

You have presented it as an unlikely coincidence - which implies probability. Probability is based on considering the occurrence of events. You have one event - the event that gave rise to COVID 19. The other event being implied as the source is a lab working with coronaviruses. There were other labs besides the Wuhan lab working with coronaviruses, and for a number of years. So, while not getting into what specifically they were doing, each of those labs for the period of time they worked with coronavirus prior to its appearance as a human transmissible virus, could have been a source. Chat GPT gives 6-7 notale labs working the coronavirus at the time. Not sure how accurate, but ...
Then of course it does not analyse the other side: the likelihood of events in which infected animals having a strain of coronavirus coming in contact with humans with a strain that jumped to humans - how many animals (carrying infection/endemic), how many wet markets, ...

Flawed logic/maths. Let me explain.

Let us assume that 7 labs were studying Covid viruses at that time. You seem to be suggesting that because of this, others could have been a source if the lab leak theory were true. But how if it started in Wuhan? There is only the one lab there. And are you suggesting that all the labs will be leaking virus research, something that is highly unlikely?

Now let us assume we had no idea of the location for the start of the virus. Even if you had 1,000 labs, the fact that the research is at this point in human history, where very few large scale respiratory viruses have appeared so far, indicates it as being highly suspicious.

But to take another angle, you seem to suggest that because there are a number of labs studying coronaviruses at that time, it means that it is less likely the Wuhan lab leaked (flawed logic if I ever saw saw a case of it!). Ignoring the flaw, would it not mean that the far large number of wet markets in China also means that the source could have come from a large number of different areas in China, and so therefore your own argument defeats itself?

Then of course it does not analyse the other side: the likelihood of events in which infected animals having a strain of coronavirus coming in contact with humans with a strain that jumped to humans - how many animals (carrying infection/endemic), how many wet markets, ...

This appears to contradict your first argument, because you are talking about multiple wet markets, yet argue that the more coronovirus labs there are, the less likely it is to come from the Wuhan lab. But now you argue the more wet markets there are, the more likely it is to have come from the Wuhan market.

And also, these wet markets have (probably) been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years, whilst the virus lab research is a matter of a few years or perhaps a decade. Yet no Covid coming from those wet markets in all that time.

Both the maths and the logic are on my side.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Using strict probability, @GaP42 is correct. Deductive logic can only suggest that it is POSSIBLE that the "Chinese lab" theory is correct. I.e. it is plausible. The "conspiracy" issue is easy, though. The Chinese government ALWAYS plays its cards "close to the vest."

We know only after-the-fact that "patient zero" was Chinese based on back-tracing the earliest occurrences of the virus. We also know after the fact that China had severe COVID outbreaks that led to various (and typically Draconian) measures to try to control it in a population not necessarily oriented towards strict sanitation (with respect to masking). The Chinese might know the identity of patient zero but good luck getting them to tell us anything.

The "wet market" explanation certainly is also plausible, but would have required an animal vector that is sufficiently similar to Man in order to host a virus that could mutate in a way that it COULD jump cross-species. Such species are known to exist, and I have heard of exotic Chinese culinary delicacies that I wouldn't touch with radiation-proof gloves. So there is no flaw in proposing that pathway. I.e. the mechanism doesn't violate any hard-and-fast rules of science. But without an actual animal sample for necropsy, again we have no way to point the accusing finger.

Here is the nasty part about mutations, viral or otherwise... it only takes one sample of a virus to mutate in a way that it can make the cross-species jump to Man. Therefore, when dealing with corona viruses, which are known to mutate pretty much at random anyway, you would need nothing special for the mutation part. Of course, in the Wuhan lab case, you DON'T need to assume a cross-species mutation. It could have been targeted to humans ab initio.

But where does that leave us? You need a comparative examination of the probabilities of both possibilities. And here is where the possibility of a unique mutation gets in the way of logic. You would be looking for a veritable "needle in a haystack" either way. Statistical methods tend to break down when confronted with exceeding small numbers. Many of the common tools of statistics deal with the Law of Large Numbers and those methods don't work with unitary occurrences.

But with inferential logic, one can SUGGEST that the Wuhan lab theory has a greater probability than the wet-market theory. The Wuhan lab would have had a larger amount of the virus if they had been engineering it, and we know that COVID-19 transmits via airborne methods. Open-air markets might well have been the origin, but we know that COVID can be transmitted by breathing. The catch is that it dies (denatures) on exposure to sunlight and dies on its own in a day or so. And the animals being sold in a wet market are probably not breathing. (I hope.) So the ODDS favor that a place where a larger quantity of the virus would be available for an accident to happen. And that favors the lab.

The only TRUE way to resolve this would be to actually get into the lab and examine their records. Good luck with getting China to allow that.

 

[GaP42]

But you are starting from the point of view that because Wuhan won the prize in the "lottery" it must have been special. Perhaps it was .. at least in two ways . The probability of someone wining a lottery is one. The probability of you winning a lottery, in your lifetime, assuming you get into lotteries is still very small. That is the fundamental flaw of the presentation of the OP.

Just on a side note re these viruses and very recent human history: several coronaviruses that have caused diseases in humans in the past, such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) which are both believed to have arisen in bats and transmitted thru some intermediary animal. As definitive occurrences of the "natural" pathway, they do lend greater weight to the likelihood of that being the mechanism in the case of Covid 19.. but I am not going to argue the point as an expert in either probability or infectious disease.

 

[Jon]

But you are starting from the point of view that because Wuhan won the prize in the "lottery" it must have been special. Perhaps it was .. at least in two ways . The probability of someone wining a lottery is one. The probability of you winning a lottery, in your lifetime, assuming you get into lotteries is still very small. That is the fundamental flaw of the presentation of the OP.

Just on a side note re these viruses and very recent human history: several coronaviruses that have caused diseases in humans in the past, such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) which are both believed to have arisen in bats and transmitted thru some intermediary animal. As definitive occurrences of the "natural" pathway, they do lend greater weight to the likelihood of that being the mechanism in the case of Covid 19.. but I am not going to argue the point as an expert in either probability or infectious disease.

You have now introduced a whole bunch of new flawed reasoning! Let me tease it apart for you.

To me, your first paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense, as I do not see what the lottery has anything to do with this or that it must have been special. Not sure what special has to do with anything here. But I will run with it to explain what is wrong with that argument.

You state that the probably of me winning the lottery in my lifetime is analogous to Wuhan leaking the Covid virus. So assume I have a 1 in a million chance of me winning the lottery in my lifetime. How do you compare that to the odds of a lab leak? You seem to imply that there are multiple labs and therefore any of them could have leaked. But you mentioned just 7 labs. So is 1 in a million lottery win odds comparable with a 1 in 7 Covid lab leak? Furthermore, you do not know the odds of a Covid leak from Wuhan, and the other labs are irrelevant in probability calculations since it started in the Wuhan region. Lastly, once Covid has appeared in Wuhan, the odds of it originating from the Wuhan lab are far greater than the odds prior to it appearing.

The odds of winning the lottery are not related to the odds of Wuhan lab leaks in any way whatsoever. That is a fundamental flaw in your presentation.

 

[Jon]

Using strict probability, @GaP42 is correct. Deductive logic can only suggest that it is POSSIBLE that the "Chinese lab" theory is correct. I.e. it is plausible. The "conspiracy" issue is easy, though. The Chinese government ALWAYS plays its cards "close to the vest."

Deductive logic can only suggest that it is possible that the Chinese lab theory is correct. But likewise, it can only suggest that the wet market theory is correct. So, given that both are possible, you look to further data to consider what is more likely.

I'm struggling to understand what you mean when you say using strict probability OP is correct. He stated that a number of labs have studied coronavirus and for a number of years. But what relevance does that have when calculating the probabilities? Imagine a volcanic event occurred on Pluto that resulted in a dust cloud. You only observe a dust cloud, not the event itself. So, you say the probability of that dust cloud being from a volcanic event on pluto is very high.

Someone then argues that volcanic events happen all over the universe, so you have to factor those into your calculation for the probability of the dust being from a volcano on Pluto. And since there are a near infinite number of volcanoes in the Universe, it is next to zero chance of the dust coming from a volcano on Pluto.

But that argument holds no weight since all the other events are not proximate to the dust cloud. Likewise with the other labs probability argument, since it was the Wuhan lab that was proximate to the Covid "event".

Regarding the number of years being studied, that is also irrelevant for two reasons. Firstly, in the span of human history, it is a tiny tiny portion of it, thus radically increasing the odds of a leak due to its proximate cause regarding the period of time it occurred. Or simply, a coronovirus appeared during the small period of coronovirus research, despite aeons of human history. Secondly, if it was being studied for a far shorter period of time compared to the period of time when wet markets were around. Or in other words, the opportunity for a wet market event to occur was large compared to the short period of the Wuhan lab.

The above paragraph is a simplification, since you need to know the probabilities of each but I'm not going there else I will be typing all day!

 

[GaP42]

The correlation of the events of a lab in Wuhan working with coronaviruses and the emergence of COVID19 is one ‘cherry-picked’ incident that you are suggesting is of greater likelihood (and therefore not the conspiracy theory) than the alternate wet-market release.

Our speculation here is not going to resolve this, however I did claim it was flawed, to rely upon the one incident, as a statistical event, to claim any support for one was more likely than the other. To make that claim you might think about the incidences of where either has occurred before:

Ie lab leaks (deliberate or accidental) vs spontaneous / natural jumps of viruses to humans.

I found a paper: it says between 1975-2016 there were 71 incidents involving either accidental or purposeful exposure to, or infection by, a highly infectious pathogenic agent in labs. High-risk human-caused pathogen exposure events from 1975-2016 - PMC (nih.gov)

Note

• not all those incidences relate to the release of novel or new pathogens. It is also a report of high risk incidents eg TB, Rabies, SmallPox, eBola, WestNile, QFever….
• The report is of human-caused events, not necessarily generating human sickness directly .. (eg Foot and Mouth disease or brucella in cattle – although human infection does occur)
• Of course there is likely under-reporting of incidents, especially given some are associated with weaponisation or defense.

A quick read – I only saw one mention of an accident involving a more virulent strain (than is found naturally?)

Then on the other hand you have the number of novel human infections arising. That would seemingly involve all pathogens (other than those novel viruses escaping labs). Over the time period in question: SARS / Bird Flu /

I found this article which says in the “last 40 years, at least 50 emerging infectious agents have been identified”.

Emerging bacterial pathogens: the past and beyond - PMC (nih.gov)

The focus is on bacterial infection, which COViD is not. Of the “26 major emerging bacterial pathogens identified” at least 8 arose through zoonosis (animal-human transmission) as opposed to increased antibiotic resistance or other cause or unknown.

So without regard to other evidence, simply relying on a correlation of the events as you put forward in the OP I still say the claim is flawed that the correlation of the event of COVID arising in Wuhan and the presence of the lab working with Coronavirus in Wuhan as the cause is not statistically more likely that the virus arising in the wet market. The original OP does was skewed and not supported by logical analysis.

EDIT: Came across this article: Viral Pandemics of the Last Four Decades: Pathophysiology, Health Impacts and Perspectives - PMC (nih.gov) which, including SARS COV2 (COVID 19), identifies 6 viral pathogens arising in the last 40 years from animal- human transmission.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Why did they lie about gain of function? And why did they censor scientist who disagreed with their conclusions. It only adds to the speculation of a cover up.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm struggling to understand what you mean when you say using strict probability OP is correct.

Merely that there is an insufficient chain of evidence to prove how COVID started. A chain of deductions can logically prove a sequence of events, but in this case, the chain is not complete. There are gaps. The rest of my point is that the odds favor - but don't prove - that the Wuhan Lab theory is slightly more likely.

 

[jpl458]

On my walk today, I had an insight into the Covid lab leak theory, which I never really thought about before. It revolves around the statistical probability of the creation of the virus at that specific point in time in human history verses the proximity of the Wuhan lab to the outbreak.

Imagine a line that represents the length of human history. In your mind, imagine the Start line below being another 1,000 times this length, but I can't fit that on the page! So pretend it goes way off the left edge of the screen.

Human history:

Start-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Today


Next we have the period in history where Covid research was being done in the Wuhan lab.

Start---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Research-------------------Today


Then we have the point where Covid appeared in Wuhan.

Start------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Covid--------------------Today


To me, when you have a very long line (1,000x the above) and yet the appearance of Covid happens right next to a lab that is studying Covid viruses at that point in time in human history, it seems more than correlation and more than coincidence. If you consider the number of respiratory viruses that affect humans, we have flu and colds. Yes, there are some others, but these are the seasonal common ones. And yet we now have another.

Considering the length of time humans have been around, and we have two major respiratory viruses, to have a third appear next to a lab studying these type of viruses seems way more than coincidence.

So, I ask you, when people refer to the Wuhan lab leak as a conspiracy theory, how do they know that the wet market explanation is not infact the conspiracy theory? Who decides which is the conspiracy theory and which is not? FaceBook? Twitter? The government?

We will probably never know.

 

[jdraw]

Or even:

Start-----ConspiracyTheory-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Today

 

[Jon]

Or even:

Start-----ConspiracyTheory-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Today

By Start, I mean the start of humans, not Covid. Not sure if that alters your timeline.

 

[Jon]

Merely that there is an insufficient chain of evidence to prove how COVID started. A chain of deductions can logically prove a sequence of events, but in this case, the chain is not complete. There are gaps. The rest of my point is that the odds favor - but don't prove - that the Wuhan Lab theory is slightly more likely.

Yes, I agree there is no certainty. But my understanding was that the other person was arguing that a Wuhan lab leak was less probable than the other explanations. They were trying to show that a leak from the Wuhan lab was improbable because of various factors. But their logic in that was flawed. If you don't mind me saying, it was a misuse of probability and statistics, something that is easily done. And I explained why.

In this case, when you look at the odds, you look at them less from having certainty, and more from which hypothesis is most likely. We are currently uncertain on either theory. My argument was not based on whether a leak from the lab was possible or not, but on whether the lab leak theory or the wet market theory was more likely.

This reminds me a bit of an argument about the incredible unlikeliness of the Universe existing, because you had to have the physics set up in a certain way to maintain any kind of equilibrium. Yet the Universe does exist. Likewise, before an event occurs giving rise to Covid, you could argue that the likelihood of a lab leak could be say 1%. But after the event, you have to alter the statistics because Covid now exists, similar to the Universe description I mentioned above. So perhaps it is reasonable to say the lab leak hypothesis is now 60% (or 30%/40% etc) the cause of Covid, and no longer 1%. Hope that made sense!

 

[Jon]

We will probably never know.

I agree. The Chinese authorities were fast to clamp down on any information leaks. They seem to be better at controlling those leaks than virus leaks.

 

[jdraw]

By Start, I mean the start of humans, not Covid. Not sure if that alters your timeline.

No, I was suggesting that Conspiracy Theories started about a week after the start of humans.

I recall many stories in early Covid, when there was an abundance of infections in Italy, there was a number of migrant Chinese workers who worked in the Italian garment industry and went back and forth (China/Italy) in various rotations.
Could just be another "conspiracy", but it had certain plausibility at the time.

Covid did show us that peer review of vaccine-related articles by qualified science/scientists was a bit of a "hoax"/joke. The pharmaceutical companies and various governments controlled the information (or lack thereof) to the public at large. "Safe and effective" became the marketing line.