The virus was developed during gain-of-function research and was released by accident.
Question
What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?
01 Oct, 2020Answer
Background
When a novel coronavirus was first identified in late 2019, the assumption was that, like most epidemics, it was of a
Today, claiming a non-zoonotic origin is widely considered a conspiracy theory, and indeed many such claims are easily refutable without requiring probabilistic inference.
However, the possibility of a lab escape does require serious examination, especially when considering the proximity of the source to a major coronavirus lab and several unusual findings in the genome of SARS-CoV-2. Due to the complexities of weighing an unlikely lab origin against findings that are unlikely for a
This analysis is part of the Rootclaim $100,000 challenge, open to anyone who disagrees with our calculated conclusion. Read more.
Hypotheses Considered
Calculated Results
Calculated Results
1
89%
The virus was developed during gain-of-function research and was released by accident.
89%
2
4.5%
The virus was genetically engineered as a bioweapon and was deliberately released.
4.5%
3
3.2%
The virus evolved in nature, and was contracted by virus researchers.
3.2%
4
3.2%
The virus evolved in nature and was transmitted to humans zoonotically.
3.2%
Starting Point
Initial Probabilities
Name
Initial Likelihoods
Zoonotic
78%
Lab escape
0.7%
Bioweapon
16%
Zoonotic collection
6%
There have been many more viruses introduced to humanity zoonotically than through lab failures. Specifically, there were several major pandemics involving novel coronaviruses from natural origin in recent years. Although there have been no known outbreaks involving any novel viruses (coronavirus or otherwise) that came from research, there have been cases of lab leaks that were caught before causing widespread infections, including one lab leak (of a previously known virus) that led to secondary infections. There are also no known cases of a virus being released deliberately in modern history.
Before examining the specific evidence, the initial estimate of the probabilities of Zoonotic : Zoonotic collection : Bioweapon : Lab escape (based on their respective likelihood of incidents per year) is 78% : 6% : 16% : 0.6%.
Name
Initial Likelihoods
Zoonotic
78%
Lab escape
0.7%
Bioweapon
16%
Zoonotic collection
6%
Evidence
Effect
Contagion and mortality
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
COVID-19 is more contagious than the typical flu, but not as fatal as recent viruses like MERS or SARS. Overall, it is not particularly well-suited as a traditional bioweapon, and COVID-19 broke out during a relatively peaceful time. This indicates that, if it was used as a bioweapon, it would probably not be released as a method of killing people but for a different purpose such as disrupting the world economy.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Outbreak location: Wuhan
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
The COVID-19 outbreak was first recorded in Wuhan, one of the larger cities in China. Large cities are often the initial breakout sites of zoonotic pandemics, but in that sense Wuhan is no more likely than any other city. It also isn't a particularly desirable target for releasing a bioweapon.
However, Wuhan stands out for housing the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one of only a few labs engaged in gain-of-function research.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Virus sources near Wuhan
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
There are no obvious natural sources for COVID-19 in the Wuhan area (Hubei province). The most similar coronavirus is found among bats that don’t live nearby, and scientists have not been able to pinpoint the exact point where SARS-CoV-2 transferred to humans. On the other hand, the initial cluster of cases in the Wuhan wet market is significantly more likely if the virus originated zoonotically.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Chimera
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
SARS-CoV-2 has parts in common with two different viruses, but those individual viruses do not share these similarities with each other, indicating it is a chimera. Such chimeras are found both in nature and in labs that conduct gain-of-function research. However, this specific chimera seems less likely to combine in nature, while the WIV is known to have access to both viruses.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Furin cleavage
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
SARS-CoV-2 has a furin cleavage site - an amino acid sequence that causes the protease furin to cut the virus in a way that facilitates its entry into cells. This feature is missing in related coronaviruses, and its placement in the genetic code looks like an insertion rather than a mutation, making it less likely to develop in nature.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Already well adapted
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
It appears that there was one index case of COVID-19, rather than multiple jumps from nature to humans, as was the case in many other pandemics. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 was already well adapted for human infection from the first known cases.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
WIV lab procedures
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
There is some evidence regarding lax security and procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including other coronaviruses that seem to have escaped the confines of the lab.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Infections at WIV
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
A U.S. intelligence report showed that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology sought hospital care in November 2019, though the exact illness is not known. However, the WIV reported no COVID-19 infections or serological evidence of previous COVID-19 infections among their researchers.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
WIV disassociation
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
The WIV explicitly stated that they were not working on SARS-CoV-2 prior to the outbreak.
However, on December 30, when Dr. Shi Zheng-Li was informed of the COVID-19 outbreak, changes were made to her bat virus database, making it look like she was trying to dissociate her lab's research from the COVID-19 outbreak.
Then, in January 2020, WIV researchers published a paper claiming to have found a previously unknown coronavirus named RaTG13 that was a 96% match with SARS-CoV-2.
But RaTG13 is a new name given to BtCoV/4991, a coronavirus that the WIV discovered (along with many other viruses) when they examined a bat cave after six miners contracted a pneumonia-like disease and three died.
This, and other anomalies surrounding WIV’s handling of RaTG13, are indicative of attempts to minimize WIV involvement.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Chinese response
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
The official Chinese response was not transparent, though not particularly surprising even if the virus developed zoonotically. They restricted WHO access, destroyed samples, and withheld information, which might be construed as an attempt to hide evidence that could be used to blame China for COVID-19. Additionally, they sent Major General Chen Wei from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences to oversee COVID-19 efforts at the WIV, which could potentially indicate the involvement of a bioweapon, but it is probably immaterial.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Missing evidence
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
If the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a virus developed in a lab - and got out either as the result of an accident or released on purpose as a bioweapon - there are certain pieces of evidence that could have emerged by now, but so far did not.
-
No whistleblowers have given first hand testimony or exposed evidence of any link between COVID-19 and a lab, even though some doctors and researchers have spoken out about other incidents where they believed that China mishandled information regarding COVID-19.
-
There were no published records of SARS-CoV-2 in virus databases or research grants.
-
Wuhan was not immediately cordoned off when the first cases appeared.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Discussion