Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Highlighted open discussions

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)

Origin update?...

From the article's intro: "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."

The citation provided there though (#18) is dated 2020, when the pandemic was still quite new, and our understanding of the virus and its origins were much more limited. We now have US government agencies, like the Energy Dept in the recent report, saying that a lab leak origin is more likely. So I would suggest that this part of the intro be updated, rewritten, and much newer citations used. -2003:CA:871C:D28:77AA:E11E:9B4:E4E6 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See: COVID-19 lab leak theory and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 where this discussion is more appropriately placed. I'll bring the consensus wording from those pages. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In close to 50 years, the origin of Ebola still haven't been found. And note that DOE seems to have low confidence in their claim. Not to mention to 200 million farms in China. Gah4 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Early origin

Found a review of early detections, including viral DNA from a skin sample in Italy November 12, 2019. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/e008386.long Sennalen (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The authors themselves describe how much false positives likely impacted these results:

laboratory evidence for early circulation is often dismissed and labelled as a result of false-positive testing. Antibody detection results can indeed be affected by the presence in sera of antibodies which, although able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 antigens, were induced by other agents.12 However, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising activity in these sera and the fact that several patients presented more than one class of antibodies recognising SARS-CoV-2 suggest that, although some cross-reactivity should be taken into account, at least some of the sera could contain antibodies induced by a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection... PCR-based methods are highly sensitive and, therefore, more prone to false-positive results.

So yes, it's certainly possible these are real, but they are also very far from proven. The sequencing data does also predict an emergence into humans in late October/early November based on mutation rates: [1][2][3] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's one mode of testing. Evidence was found in sera antibodies and RNA skin samples from November and sewage two weeks later. There were no positives in June-August. It's not an isolated false positive, but a body of evidence consistent with the same timeline. Sennalen (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: No real harm in reastating it, but the part you added wasn't missing. Sennalen (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think wikipedia policy makes it clear that we should always put mainstream criticisms of things next to their mention whenever possible, and not separate them so as to de-emphasize or isolate criticism. That's why I made the edit I did, even if I do think the addition is a good one to the article. I think it should probably be integrated more with that paragraph, though, as it currently reads weird wrt the later sentences about December of 2019... Given that most sources place the beginning of the pandemic in late November, early December. I am happy to help fix it but I also think you are well-equipped to do so — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking for Sennalen (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As a subject matter expert, early detections outside of China before 2019 are not taken seriously. Everything starting from "The Lombardy region..." until "..and RNA sequencing" should in my opinion be removed as WP:UNDUE. One single review "Waiting for the truth" is used almost exclusively for the whole paragraph. It has only been cited 10 times in more than a year, which is very little for a review in general and in particular on the hot topic of COVID. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Lab leak theory

The fact that this page doesn’t even mention the possibility that the virus originated in a lab is baffling, given that there are a number of credible experts who have stated it is plausible, not to mention the U.S. intelligence agencies who’ve concluded it’s probable. The complete omission of this viewpoint calls into question the neutrality and objectivity of the entire article. 68.12.22.29 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin. Chinese farms are far from natural, so it doesn't seem likely that it is natural. Virologists for many years have been expecting a new pandemic flu virus from China. Among others, that slowed down the reaction to Covid. Note that the origin of Ebola still has not been found, over many more years. But yes, China isn't helping as much as they could. Gah4 (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue. I raised this question more than a year ago and made well-sourced changes to the article that reflected the changing consensus. It got me banned by aggressive editors. StN (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d say we are heading for a mention on this as there are more reliable sources discussing e.g. the BBC.

If you were basing some new text on the current media flurry I think we would need a little more time to see how it develops and to avoid suggestions that it’s recentism or news and because we have only got to the point of “don’t rule out” - frustrating as that may be seeing as you have waited a year already.

This from The Scientific American seems to sum up the position well and I’d support an addition to our text based around this or similar.

“At least eight U.S. intelligence agencies have conducted their own investigations of the virus’s origins. Four agencies concluded a natural spillover from animals is most likely, two favor a lab leak, and two are undecided. U.S. president Joe Biden recently signed a bill requiring U.S. government information related to COVID origins to be declassified.”

It’s a reliable source but beware that over egging the lab escape possibility would be undue, (as our current text is because it doesn’t really mention it)

I think the article should have been more open minded from the start but there was initially a pushback on the lab idea because Trump said it - and for some that automatically makes it wrong. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW we do have other articles on this (see Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 for example) that underplay the possibility of a lab release. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDHT and then read the contribution directly above yours. most likely of zoonotic origin is what the reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC) I misread something, so I am striking this. There was actually no pro-science contribution in this thread until then, only lableaker voices and one uncertain one. Alerting WP:FTN now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, even if the spillover didn't happen in the market, but e.g. from a bat in the lab, it would still be zoonosis. The only hypothesis that I can think of that doesn't fall under "zoonosis" would involve engineering, which is only a subset of the various theories summarized under the lab leak umbrella. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And I get that it has to be zoonosis in the sense of 'natural' - but that is missing the point surely when this lab leak possibility involves human agency (or incompetence etc.) rather than a naturally occurring event. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess my reply was to @StN who wrote The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Have read IDHT. I'm afraid I don't get your point (really). How should I have phrased?

In response to StN I am saying that there are reliable sources reporting government agencies saying 'lab leak' and discussing how to include. Shouldn't I? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I politely disagree with @Gah4's statement above:

  It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin.

  The article does discuss origin scenarios:

a) Intermediate host:

A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely.

b) Food supply chain:

Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.

c) Huanan Market being source:

An analysis in November 2021, however, said that the earliest-known case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market argued for it being the source.

I consider it WP:DUE to mention the fact that a considerable number of leading scientists consider a laboratory incident/accident plausible. For example, it may be worth mentioning this letter in Science criticizing the WHO report by saying that [the theory of a laboratory incident] was not given balanced consideration and further stating: We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. This letter was discussed in secondary sources, e.g. WSJ.

We do not get into the details, however, it would be good to state that a laboratory incident/accident is one of the origin hypotheses being considered. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The "food supply chain" hypothesis is taken seriously by far fewer scientists than a lab leak. Yet it gets mentioned in the article. Hard to explain. So either it has to go or lab incident/accident should get a mention as well. Even former China CDC head George F. Gao now states that a lab leak shouldn't be ruled out, see today's BBC article. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Great. Do we have any strong objections to the lab leak being a possibility?

If not lets get it in. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't rush it, there may well be objections by e.g. @Hob Gadling and/or @Gah4. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose not to it being a possibility, but I don't believe a strong possibility. It is possible for me to buy a Powerball ticket and win, but not likely. Gah4 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise, I suppose I don't disagree with the polite disagreement. Not that I said so much that one could agree or disagree with. Gah4 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, you said the article doesn't discuss origin scenarios. But it does, it even mentions the food supply chain hypothesis which is not believed by anyone I know. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I should try to find a WP:RS for virologists ten or so years ago, mentioning Chinese farms as the source of the next global pandemic. And, likely coming from that, a fictional story with Wuhan as the center of a pandemic source. Gah4 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if we're going to mention the lab-leak stuff at all, per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we would need to bring in the mainstream context: that there is zero evidence for it, that there are popular misconceptions about its likelihood, that many LL ideas are conspiracy theories, that it's informed by racist undertones, and that nearly all scientists don't subscribe to it (except maybe in a can't-rule-stuff-out / remote-possibility kind of way). Basically it's just speculation, and best left to the misinformation articles and the specialist LL article. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And the origin of Ebola still isn't known. The worst thing about lab-leak, is that many politicians believe that we need to find the origin to stop the next pandemic. Sounds good. But there is no reason to suspect that the next one will have the same origin. There were many who were sure in 2018 that the next world pandemic would be caused by a new flu virus, and planned for that. I suspect that is usual for conspiracy theories. We need to find out who shot JFK, to stop the next assassination. Oh well. Gah4 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there some people take a lab hypothesis to fringe levels should not prevent us from mentioning the non-fringe possibility that the lab may have been involved. I agree that the loudest voices have fringe views, but measured non-fringe views exist, who are not informed by racist undertones (see Science letter). Could you explain why you think the cold chain hypothesis deserves mention? It is considered to be a narrative pushed by the Chinese gov't to deflect blame. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We link to the Investigations article which has the following in its lede: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by evidence." I would not object to including that wording here. Bon courage (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Though maybe we should also add US government agencies which may or may not have non-public evidence. If I correctly understand the scientists asking for investigations of all possible origins, including accidental laboratory release, they agree that there is no public evidence for such a release. However, they believe that the evidence for alternative hypotheses may not be as strong as reported. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose adding the "US agencies" talking point, as being undue. Bon courage (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the involvement of state actors and lack of transparency, see e.g. Chinese scientists echoing party line, this isn't a question that science alone can argue. Intelligence agencies may well have relevant non-public evidence. But I understand that this is best placed in the origins article. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false. There is plenty of evidence of a lab leak. Maybe not evidence you find convincing, but evidence none the less. Bonewah (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same kind of evidence that the moon landing was faked. Which is why the sources say what they do. Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple government agencies believe in the equivalent of the moon landing? I disagree. Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Some bureaucrats believe in X" is not evidence for X. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but what US spook agencies say they "believe" has nothing to do with whether there's evidence. Follow the sources rather than trying to interpret/speculate. Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Zero evidence" is scientist-speak for "only shitty evidence that one would expect in any case, whether the LL idea is true or not, and which therefore does not count". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false
It seems you have a problem with our sources then, as that's what our highest quality sources say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible existence of non-public evidence is not relevant. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the published knowledge of mankind, not speculation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If an agency makes an estimation based on non-public evidence and that is reported in RS then the agency's opinion can in theory be included if due. The evidence itself doesn't need to be public. My point is that the question of origin is not one that is intrinsically scientific. Scientific methods can help find an answer, but there may well be other sources of information that aren't scientific, like intelligence sources. There is no categorical difference between a question like "Who was SARS-CoV-2 patient zero?" and "Who piloted the drone that crashed over the kremlin?". AncientWalrus (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

All this about which out of which US agencies say what with whatever degrees of confidence and disagreement is in the LL article. The trouble is just saying "The ${agency} thinks so!" is unbalanced and reductive & makes it look like this is uber-important. Which is why LL people say it over and over and over again. This stuff isn't even mentioned in the investigation article lede so going over it here would be doubly undue. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "there is no evidence of LL" is unbalanced and reductive & makes it look like the issue is decided, which it is not. Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's just accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources, so Wikipedia reflects it. It would only make the matter look "decided" to a reader with no elementary understanding of logic, since evidence may emerge in time. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming that its "accepted knowledge" that the LL theory has no supporting evidence? Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources". See the COVID-19 lab leak theory article for further details/sources. Bon courage (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if you are proposing an edit along these lines, then i oppose it. At least as far as i can discern what you seem to be proposing. If not, them maybe we can just stop. Bonewah (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

To repeat, I would not object to copying the consensus text/refs to be in sync with the Investigations article - specifically: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by evidence." Also happy to leave any mention of LL out. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then i object. Specifically to the line "This theory is not supported by evidence." Bonewah (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Personal objections don't count. We're not going to use this article to create a WP:POVFORK; so what we say has to be in sync with the other more detailed articles on the topic, and present the mainstream view prominently to be neutral, which is a must. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Because there is evidence. Maybe evidence you dont find compelling, or that Hob Gadling would describe as "only shitty evidence that one would expect in any case" but evidence none the less. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think. It cares about what the sources say. And the sources say there is "no evidence exists to support such a notion"[4] and "there is no good evidence" [5] and "there's not a single piece of data suggesting" that the lab leak is true. [6] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
That's what our most reliable highest quality sources state. E.g. [7][8][9][10][11]

Wikipedia is not about "the Truth". It's about having verifiability to what our highest quality sources say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, Bonewah is apparently engaging in WP:PROFRINGE advocacy. Wikipedia reflects sources, not editor opinion. Bon courage (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink Can you clarify something for me? Just above you said "The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
That's what our most reliable highest quality sources state." Do you mean by that the "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin,"? In other words, the statement ""Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin" is what our most reliable highest quality sources state? Bonewah (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and WP:RS/AC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just leave it as is, seeing as that is what we currently say in the lede? Bonewah (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm advocating for, yes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph on early detections outside of China

The whole paragraph about putative early detections of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in Italy in the autumn of 2019 should be removed. It is entirely based on primary research. While it may appear that the most cited reference is a review, that review article was written by the same authors who did the original research the review is reviewing.
For a topic with such extensive secondary and tertiary coverage in reputable science journalism, such a not-widely cited review does not justify a paragraph in this article.
I already touched on this briefly in the higher up topic Early origin. Thanks @Bon courage for getting started on this here but I think we should go much further by removing it altogether. If at all, it should get a minor mention in the separate origins article. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, if anything it deserves a very short mention, but we probably overemphasize the research here. Any mention of it requires heavy context about it being speculative and possible false positives, but that would create an overall too-long mention. So I agree with your suggestion to cut it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There does seem to be a review cited, but it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim given way too much credence here. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The review didn't get much traction at all. I couldn't find any mention of the early detection theory in any Science journal news article, which is a good proxy for what is considered reasonable by the science community. The Lancet Commission gives it one sentence Whether identifiable cases appeared earlier than December, 2019, is unknown. in a long article. None of the reports were published in top journals either. The best independent coverage I could find is Wired which closes with But it’s clear that the evidence so far isn’t the most robust. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” says Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. “I’m not convinced that a dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data leads one to a firm conclusion.” AncientWalrus (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I would overall say it is UNDUE for such a top-level summary article like this. I agree a short mention in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 could be appropriate if worded in a DUE and NPOV manner. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Erledigt Excised. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)