Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

risk assessment
A recent UNSW paper gives the lab leak theory a higher propability than the Zoonosis. But this article is unserviceable, so I drop it here. Alexpl (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Origin of COVID-19
It is not clear whether this article was created as a proper WP:CFORK of that article or whether it can only function as a WP:POVFORK. Depending on the outcome of that determination, either a merge back to the main article or a proper summary of this article at the main article ought to be completed. jps (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * To avoid duplication, please concentrate discussion at Talk:COVID-19_zoonosis_theories Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Restoring archived discussion as it is clear this discussion was never concluded. TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @ජපස, @Sennalen, @DFlhb, @MisterWizzy, @Aquillion, @Bon courage, @Generalrelative and @Novem Linguae as editors who were all involved in the previous merge discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 which was not concluded. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am now completely confused as to what is meant to happen next. Probably nothing, as anything will provoke argument about what's meant to happen next. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge discussions can perhaps take longer than the time allowed in AfD. I'm in the process of pinging everyone that was in that discussion also. Let's see where the discussion goes. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @AndyTheGrump, @HandThatFeeds, @Graham Beards, @Tewdar, @Jaredroach, @DanielRigal, @Thinker78, @SchroCat, @XMcan, @Palpable and @Sirfurboy as edtiors that were involved in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Apologies if I've doubled up on anyone or missed anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs) 13:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The recent AFD reached no consensus. That doesn't actually bar us from a merge discussion - a no-consensus outcome on something important ideally means we keep working at it until we can reach a consensus of some sort in one way or another, and by my reading that was very close to a successful merge anyway - but we should think about the objections and ideas raised there, on both sides, and try to figure out what to do. One thing that occurs to me is that this article probably shouldn't link to that one per WP:ONEWAY. Another thing that occurs to me is that people may have been influenced by the sheert size of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, which I'm not sure the sources actually justify. It might be worth going over that article and trimming more weakly-sourced things, or things that require WP:MEDRS sourcing and don't have it. Removing opinions cited to non-experts would also help get a clearer view of what's actually salvageable there, which might help convince people that a merge is feasible. It's also worth pointing out that the closer said that arguments here have not been based on policy which suggests, to me, that they felt that both the "merge" and "keep" arguments were not policy-based (something I find a bit surprising); this suggests to me that a merge discussion with stronger arguments would probably pass because the arguments against merging weren't policy-compliant. --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anyone doubt that this is really a content dispute? I assumed that's what the comment about arguments not based on policy referred to. - Palpable (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Another option is to merge Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Zoonosis. It is worthwhile taking a look at all Wikipedia articles that contain the word "Zoonosis" to get a sense of how this issue is handled for other diseases. For example, there is no article for "Zoonotic origins of Flu". There is, however, an article Feline zoonosis. Therefore we could also consider creating an article Bat zoonosis, and seeding it with the material from Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Taking another tack, we can examine what Wikipedia articles are of the form, "Origin of ____". There are not very many, none about diseases (other than the one in question), most about human populations. So we may not want to feed the beast by adding to Origin of COVID-19. See also my comments at Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, exploring parallels with the Origin of Life article. Jaredroach (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as proposed. The merge should be reversed. Zoonotic origins is the primary article here that explains the origin of the virus, and the Origin of Covid article is about investigations, which is background history, or perhaps a related sub article. But Zoonotic origins answers the question "where did COVID come from". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Rename page to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 ?
The page title has a category error. This is an article about the virus' origin (as it says in the first sentence), not the "origin" of the disease. Everybody knows the disease is originated by infection with the virus. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bon courage, I agree with your rational. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Biased Article
The article in its current form displays a clear bias.

The introduction paragraph is formulated to imply the zoonotic origin is scientific evidence and other hypotheses a product of conspiracy or fiction.

The zoonotic origin is a deduction based on the article of Andersen et al., 2020. It contains deductions based on comparative analyses, but they do not represent factual evidence. Fact: "We prove that ...", Comparative Analysis: "Based on previous data we assess it is unlikely that ..."

That article should be put on the bigger picture that is recently arising, on how a segment of the research community (represented Dr. Daszak) tried to cover up the role of Wuhan's lab coronavirus research and rush to declare that China is not guilty. Those are not conspiracies anymore https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01305-z and even Nature accepts it.

In light of the recent development, it seems foolish to still "blindly" believe in the integrity of the virus-research scientific community, at a time when it is crystal clear (echoed by Nature, US Senate, etc.) that the scientific community had been compromised. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is - at present - no actual evidence for the lab leak theory. One guy not disclosing a tangential collaboration with a lab does not give credence to your conspiracy theory.
 * I don't believe in the integrity of any specific institution, but I believe in evidence. There is ample evidence of zoonotic origin, and 0 evidence of lab leak. LMFcan (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by ample evidence? Because there is no evidence that the origin is zoonotic, there are only studies that deduce the zoonotic evidence to be "highly likely" based on a comparative assessment of the genome. The same studies assess a lab leak to be "highly unlikely". Sorry for how you understand science and facts, but this is not evidence. See the definition of the word "fact" for a start Fact.
 * Regarding your assessment that my opinion is a conspiracy, this is exactly the root of this problem. In the beginning of the pandemic, conspiracists used the situation to ignite unsourced debates. The more rational fragment of the society, call them science believers, quickly jumped in to "calm" down the population and avoid that the masses are influenced by conspiracies.
 * However, purely because conspiracists believe in a theory does not make it automatically wrong or laughable. The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few scientists, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a zoonotic origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in an intermediate host. Such evidence was never discovered, despite thousands of tests on animals in the Wuhan region and beyond.
 * I am not a virologist and will not argue with the technical details. However, it is my right to demand that Wikipedia is impartial and that it does not turn into a stronghold of blind "science-believing" editors, who reject any alternate theory as simply conspiracy because they are too proud to accept they might have been wrong in prematurely believing in what-seems-to-be a compromised nucleus of scientific researchers with conflicts of interests in the cause of the pandemic. Science is not a static concept of math equations, but also a more general vision of seeking the truth, especially in such cases when the "truth" dynamically evolves considering the incoming flow of new pieces of the puzzle.2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You say, "The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few scientists, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a zoonotic origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in an intermediate host."
 * I think, "The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few politicians, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a lab leak origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in any lab ."
 * Same logic, different result, no? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unrelated comment first: I appreciate the creativity of your answer.
 * Coming to the point: I do not support the "few politicians", however, it seems most editors believe in the "few scientists" as if they were divine creatures of scientific puritanism. Recent evidence suggests their work is not exclusively driven by scientific rigor, to put it mildly.
 * Science should give an ultimate answer, however, please notice that the scientific community does not have an absolute consensus on the matter:
 * https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf
 * In the survey above published in February 2024, among 168 leading global experts in virology 79% believe in a zoonotic origin, and 21% believe in an accident-related origin. That is a staggering amount of disagreement to call the situation a consensus, especially since it takes a lot of courage to question the zoonotic origin without being declared a conspiracist, crazy right-wing, etc., and risking a character assassination (we even have an example above when I was characterized as a "conspiracist" by the previous editor, only because I dared to question the balance of this article).
 * Perhaps it is not too late that Wikipedia fixes this page, by balancing this article with the lines "The community of scientists is divided into two fronts, the majority supporting a zoonotic origin, and a minority supporting an accident leak.", and removing the absurd part implying that individuals questioning the zoonotic origin are conspiracists, etc. The current phrasing is insulting, to say the least, to a rational being. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I found https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests (a description of that survey's flaws) informative. My favorite line was this:
 * “At least 78% of experts are very badly informed (not aware of one key document)...33% of experts are either lying or easily confused [because they claimed to be familiar with a paper that never existed]. Basically, these experts are no better than the Delphic Pythia, hallucinations included.”
 * And that's from someone who believes that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you read the Science article's comment, which assesses that:
 * "That hardly means respondents believe the matter is settled, however. One in five researchers gave a probability of 50% or more to a scenario other than a natural zoonosis."
 * The other line you are reporting should be taken in the right context, which is the opposite of what you are implying:
 * The article refers to a comment that "78% of experts" were uninformed of a proposal "known as DEFUSE, which was submitted to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018 by the nonprofit EcoHealth Allianceand partnering labs in the United States and at the Wuhan Institute of Virology".
 * The person tweeting suggests the majority supporting the zoonotic origin is not well-informed, and follows a "herd mentality" zoonotic belief.
 * This survey, including the Science article you cited, further iterates that the reality is far away from the clear zoonotic consensus among the scientific community, contrary to what this Wikipedia article tries to indicate. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, anyone who believes in a puritanical "science should come to an ultimate answer" has never actually worked in science, much less in a biological sub-field. There are exceptions and conjecture in every aspect of it, only after decades of research and long standing debate will you often get some "ultimate answer", if ever. Hell, we still have large swaths of the population, including some scientists, who don't believe in evolution - one of the few "ultimate answers" we've ever come to.
 * Secondly, ~4/5th of experts saying they believe in zoonotic origins does not validate or verify claims of lab leak, if anything it should reduce your certainty in it. You'll also notice that despite the fact that they determine similar levels of experts believe in zoontic origins, there's a 10% disparity between virologists (who would be trained in molecular biology) and epidemiologists (who rarely are).
 * Lastly, there is a finite number of ways a virus can jump species. If it were from a GoF experiment in a lab that leaked into the public, you'd be able to identify somewhat easily with the sequence of the virus where genes were inserted. No lab on the planet has been able to identify where that would have happened in the sequence, because as it stands now, there isn't any evidence to support it ever happened. LMFcan (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that "~4/5th of experts saying they believe in zoonotic origins does not validate or verify claims of lab leak, if anything it should reduce your certainty in it".
 * The posterior on a belief depends on both the prior probability of the belief and the evidence (see Bayes' theorem).
 * If the prior belief in a zoonotic origin was 0.99999999999 (as this Wiki page seems to imply), then evidence of 0.8 (4/5 experts) reduces the zoonotic origin likelihood, instead of increasing it.
 * Concerning:
 * "If it were from a GoF experiment in a lab that leaked into the public, you'd be able to identify somewhat easily with the sequence of the virus where genes were inserted. No lab on the planet has been able to identify where that would have happened in the sequence, because as it stands now, there isn't any evidence to support it ever happened."
 * Apparently 1/5 experts disagree with your personal opinion.
 * And this is exactly the point, the Wiki article should openly state the disagreement on the matter instead of defending a non-existing consensus on the zoonotic origin. It implies a conclusive deduction of the research community, as opposed to a work in progress research and investigation. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:A1B1:DD1A:A1D6:9C4B (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The top half of this is so stupid I actually struggled to comprehend your interpretation of it.
 * Expert opinion is not evidence (read: observation). You cannot derive implicit probability from opinion, unless the output depends on that opinion (i.e. you can derive probabilistic likelihoods of who will win an election - an output based on opinion - by sampling opinion).
 * Opinion is not evidence, and the type of evidence you're gathering doesn't actually have an impact on the outcome, and is therefore not measurable by probability in this case. Moreover, the evidence of lableak, as I mentioned prior, is zero. Please, derive for me the probability of something occuring when the input of evidence is zero.
 * Lastly, you've already been provided evidence to show that the survey is mostly bunk. It used a moronic sampling method that allowed friends to recruit friends, and showed that most sampled weren't familiar with the subject matter. Even if the survey had perfect methodology and found the same results, 80% of respondents being in agreement is about as good a consensus as you'll ever get.
 * Out of the two of us, I'm going to guess that I'm the only one who worked in an infection and immunity institute during COVID. I can tell you that by the end of ~2021-early 2022 actual experts saw lab leak as a conspiracy theory. LMFcan (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that based on your comment you might need a refresher of your statistics knowledge.
 * The sample space (pls read what it means in probabilistic terms) is "consensus" or "not consensus" in zoonotic origin. This is the core of the discussion: The wiki article hints at a clear consensus on a zoonotic origin, while evidence suggests the scientific community has not reached a clear consensus.
 * You advised me that my certainty in evaluating the consensus outcome should increase after the survey (citing your comment "~4/5th of experts ... should reduce your certainty ..."), and I provided you with an argument that this is not necessarily the case, based on the principles of Bayesian inference.
 * What you refer to as "expert opinion is not observation" is simply incorrect. The concept of what constitutes evidence is always specific to the sample space of the outcomes for the variable whose probability we are measuring. For the consensus variable, the survey is evidence.
 * Regarding the comment on your experience in an infection and immunity institute: In case you are an authority in the field as you claim, you are welcome to publish your "personal survey" on the fraction of how many "actual experts saw lab leak as a conspiracy theory.". Then we can take these figures seriously. At the moment, the survey I cited is the most credible published source representing the [lack of] consensus on the zoonotic origin. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:6086:E405:FE6E:9AD3 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm going to do you a favour here and write this out in as basic and clear terms as I can.
 * "Consensus vs non-consensus" is a non-probabilistic question, because by definition you need a testable hypothesis. In other words, let's say you flip a coin. You can ask "What is the probability that it lands on heads?" <- this is the testable question. You can then draw your conclusions based on the probabilities of the possible conditions
 * What you are trying to link with Bayesian interference/Bayes Theorem lacks this. Go look at the equation. If I accepted that consensus vs non-consensus were the two possibilities of SOMETHING, what is that something you're going to put on the left hand of the equation?
 * You: "If the prior belief in a zoonotic origin was 0.99999999999 (as this Wiki page seems to imply), then evidence of 0.8 (4/5 experts) reduces the zoonotic origin likelihood, instead of increasing it."
 * If you want to act like you know anything about the scientific method we're going to write this correctly and specifically. The survey you've linked would suggest that the probability of asking a random "expert" and getting a response of zoonotic origin is 0.8 (or 0.7-whatever the actual number was). This does not do anything to "zoonotic origin likelihood", as expert opinion has no impact on said likelihood. By all probabilistic metrics, you cannot derive the likelihood of an event based on something that does not have an impact on its likelihood. We've already discussed how the methodology in this is flawed, which means that estimate is likely inaccurate. Additionally, it was conducted by a for-profit company hired by
 * https://jacob-eliosoff.medium.com/either-sars-cov-2-evolved-from-banal-a-prra-insertion-or-it-was-engineered-430d41237247
 * Second, you need to define parameters. What defines consensus? What level of positive response do you need to see for "consensus"? Well the cambridge dictionary defines it as "A generally accepted opinion; wide agreement". 80% of respondents responding the same way would fit into a generally accepted opinion. It would be, in most cases, a supermajority of respondents in agreement. Most definitions I can find online for "scientific consensus" list opinion of the majority of scientists (Cambridge doesn't have a definition, otherwise I'd include for continuity). It DOES NOT, in ANY definition mean that ALL scientists agree. So yes, if your imagined "probability" of all scientists agreeing is 0.999999, then I suspect most real facts are going to fall below your standard for scientific rigour (a quick search suggests that "only" 97% of scientists think evolution happened, and we know it to be true). However, we do not need to give credence to a hypothesis that has, as of now, 0 supporting evidence.
 * Provide me evidence for lab leak having happened beyond "a lab exists" and I'll support it. Until then, you can cry more. LMFcan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * addendum to the above: if you want to be taken seriously, go find actual evidence. A planets worth of virologists hasn't been able to yet. I'm sure you'll be the one. LMFcan (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Rand Paul et. al. in the US Senate, do not represent reality and speak only for their deranged opinions. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Rand Paul et. al. in the US Senate, do not represent reality and speak only for their deranged opinions. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)