[tripletao]

Certainly this is unlike e.g. the 1977 flu pandemic, whose genetic sequence provided strong evidence that it was an accidental release of something derived from a stored 1950 sample. Even so, at the time the WHO said "laboratory contamination can be excluded because the laboratories concerned either had never kept H1N1 virus or had not worked with it for a long time":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395678/pdf/bul...

And nothing requires accidents to happen the same way each time. If SARS-CoV-2 was a lab accident, then it's probably an accident involving a novel bat-origin coronavirus collected from nature. The WIV probably had the biggest program sampling such viruses in the world, and that's the database they made unavailable.

Why do you think that database is unavailable now? The WIV's stated reason could possibly explain why they took it down in the first place (though it would be a spectacular coincidence), but it doesn't explain why they can't bring it back up.

Note that I asked this in my previous comment, and you chose to ignore it, instead responding to the less substantive comment from another user. You likewise ignored my original question about the database until I asked it twice. You didn't discuss the possibility of an accident involving a novel, unpublished virus (which you consider the most likely lab accident scenario, I believe correctly) until others brought it up.

I don't think that's malicious, but that's not a comforting pattern. Virologists are supposed to be the experts, so they should be the ones presenting (and refuting where applicable) the strongest and most likely scenarios for a lab accident. Instead, they (and you) seem entirely focused on defending the profession, refuting easy and wrong arguments, and waiting to see how long it takes adjacent non-specialists to learn enough to discover the harder ones. You then dismiss their arguments, because they (David Relman, Alina Chan, Richard Ebright, I assume Marc Lipsitch too; the list is getting long) are mere molecular biologists or epidemiologists or whatever, and not specialist virologists.

Regardless of what we eventually learn about the origin of this pandemic, that's not the behavior of a profession that can be trusted to regulate itself, and I believe the world is realizing that now. It would be unfortunate if important virological research gets banned because the regulations are drafted by half-informed outsiders; but if virologists themselves don't seriously engage with the possibility that their work just killed 2.9M people, that's what will happen.

Of course that's not all virologists. Étienne Decroly has been pushing quite openly for an investigation of a possible lab accident, though mostly in French-language media and perhaps you'll find something wrong with his resume too.

And just so you don't miss it: Why do you think that database is unavailable now? Please feel free to ignore everything I've written except that question.

[jeduehr]

Hi you'll see elsewhere that I was very open about the fact that I, too, think an open and honest investigation from third parties is necessary. Seriously just search this page for "independent" or "investigation." I have said that several times on this post, and in the OP I linked as well. I am 100% in support of that and always have been. I just don't think the outcome will be conclusive, but I hope it will maybe prevent some of the damage this theory is causing.

I don't have time to address the rest of your comment I'm sorry, I have already sunk so much time into this post that I should have spent studying. This is the exam I have in 3 weeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USMLE_Step_1 Pay particular attention to the section marked "effect on matching residency." I never should have responded or brought myself into this post in the first place.

Sorry, but I need to exit now. I hope you find the certainty you're looking for, either way. I hope you find the solace in "holding virologists to account" that you are looking for, although I'm not sure it will happen the way you are suggesting.

[tripletao]

Then it seems like from a policy standpoint, you actually agree with Alina Chan, David Relman, Richard Ebright, etc. that a forensic investigation (i.e., an investigation that doesn't rely entirely on trust of the people providing information, similar to a financial audit) of the WIV's samples and records is necessary? That would imply you disagree with the Chinese government and with the WHO team's report, whose conclusion that lab origin was "extremely unlikely" was generally taken as meaning no further study of that scenario was required.

In any case, I certainly have work that I should be doing too, though lower-stakes than your exam. I'm not looking for solace or blame here; I just don't want another pandemic. Certainly this one might have been caused by exotic wildlife trading, or guano collection by farmers, or other nonscientific activity, and those activities should be restricted. But unless and until the WIV's collection and lab manipulation of novel potential pandemic pathogens can be confidently excluded as the cause, I don't see why anyone would permit that work either.

I'd privately guess that the Chinese government has already imposed such restrictions, and that while Shi's group may still publish occasionally for the sake of appearances their volume of risky research will fall sharply--the CCP doesn't want to lose face, but they don't want another pandemic either. Of course there's no way to confirm or refute that prediction but to wait and see.

Final note, I see that you wrote your "CoVID-19 did not come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology" post about a year ago. At the time, I would have mostly agreed with you; but since then no proximal animal host has been found, and quite a lot of Chinese-government obstruction has been. It's uncomfortable to adjust a position when you've previously made a strong statement; but that's a lot better than getting locked in to a position that you adopted based on less evidence than is available today.

Anyways, good luck on your exam. I'll continue to do everything I can to ensure that my group's designs don't explode or catch fire, and I hope you'll do the same with the risk that your (prospective) group starts a pandemic.