[n4r9]

How does the virus have a "true nature", and why would it revert to it?

My understanding is that that viruses are well known to become more infectious and less symptomatic as they mutate over time. The reason for this is that causing the host to quickly hole up reduces the chance of replication.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Unfortunately Luc's hypothesis was not explored because, as you will see from googling his name, he became the topic of debunking and adhomenim. And maybe some of his views on other topics were wrong, but his comments on this subject have aged well.

After an hour of googling I finally found a reference to his original hypothesis.

"According to him, the altered elements of this virus are eliminated as it spreads: “Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering, it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.”"

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-m...

[wk_end]

But this is just magical thinking, some variation of the naturalistic fallacy. Nature absolutely will accept molecular tinkering if it provides an evolutionary advantage.

Another commenter pointed out that, for a while, the virus became more dangerous over time, not less. And the extent to which COVID has become less dangerous over time (which probably has as much to do with widespread immunity either via vaccination or prior infection, along with the fact that most people particularly vulnerable to COVID have already died), there's no indication that it had anything to do with undo'ing any kind of "unnatural change" - in particular, the furin cleavage site that's one of the more likely candidates for being "unnatural" is still there.

So no, I wouldn't say his comments on the subject have aged particularly well.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Everything is relative, and Luc's view has aged better than authoritative admonitions that the virus might never moderate in severity.[1] I mean, Luc was a Nobel prize winner in this field. His ideas were creative, sure, but magical? It's not hard to see the logic-- these kinds of molecules subside in evolution because they didn't arise from evolution in the first place. I mean, his opinion was a first take when the world was Cloroxing bananas, There's more info now, but this still is an example of how the conversation may have gone differently had governments taken the view that lab-origin was viable.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-...

[n4r9]

If the virus was reverting to its "true nature" or "undoing" molecular tinkering, then I would expect to see a clear pattern of progress/equilibration towards a specific strain. That doesn't appear to be the case; the virus is continually branching out into a host of sub lineages, some of which are more transmissible, some more virulent, some less affected by vaccines.

It's a rule of thumb that variants which are more transmissible and less virulent are more likely to succeed over time, and I remember discussing this with people early in the pandemic. By no means does this provide credence for a lab leak hypothesis.

I think "magical" is quite an accurate description of the idea that even viruses have a "true nature" that they will revert to. That's some Plato-level adherence to the rigidity of nature.