[MrOwnPut]

Zoonotic would mean it was a natural occurrence. The GoF program of adding the spike protein to attach to the ACE2 receptor and putting it in a mouse would NOT be zoonotic, but lab made. It's a lab mouse. Not a jump, but a deliberate placement in a lab.

Obviously the implications matter whether it occurred in nature or deliberately by man. If it was the latter, then the program that was supposed to prepare against the potential of a natural virus actually made something that may never have happened, and then went on to kill millions.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> putting it in a mouse would NOT be zoonotic

It sounds like the claim is that it’s “from humanized (ACE2-transgenic) mice“. I assume “humanized” is referring to the genome or something else about the genetics but these organisms still shouldn’t be considered humans (or at least this opinion seems reasonable; if it’s factually wrong I’m open to being corrected).

But if it’s “from” non-human “to” human, isn’t that a zoonotic jump, or is there some mistake in this understanding?

[jacquesm]

Zoonotic jumps can still happen in a lab. They are simply jumps from one species to another.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Thanks for the explanations. Admittedly, my introduction to the term “zoonotic” was from playing Plague Inc: Evolved (if one is not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_Inc:_Evolved) so you might see where I’m coming from. I do roughly understand this to be the meaning.

[jacquesm]

Interesting. I noticed that one of my kids picked up a lot about how electricity works as well as simple and/or/not/nand gates. But that doesn't mean he knows anything about electricity, merely how the game logic presents it, which is close but not quite how it really works. That doesn't mean he knows nothing either, but it does mean that such knowledge should always be verified with proper sources to ensure you're not accidentally learning something isn't quite true.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> verified

Yeah, I have difficulty with this, in particular trusting sources. Wikipedia is almost always correct on a technical level but very information dense (Good Thing! Recently I looked up “captain obvious disambiguation” for a joke and learned the word “lapalissade”) so it sometimes requires a certain mindset to learn from there. Some public school teachers don’t like being questioned(!!) and I think that’s caused me to have an internalized skepticism of academics, ironically despite the likelihood they’re more informed. Rando stranger on the internet can be good source but maybe a bullshitter instead.

On the whole, and especially in particular if one pays attention, people here tend to make “good faith” statements such that a difference of opinion similar to this thread is genuinely informative if one is willing to consider the possibility of any particular thing being true (or not). It helps to understand the difference between statements of fact and opinion. I’ve found it helps also to be open about a lack of knowledge if one is willing to ask questions and “be taught” in a fashion, despite the reputation that such leading statements have.

I try to remind myself that all topics which are able to capture academics’ attention have a lot of depth to them, practically by necessity. My physics teacher in high school was fantastic so I have a solid understanding of the concepts taught in that class -- in my experience, MKS logic has been a helpful mental exercise for understanding any abstraction. But it would still take years of study for me to really understand the things we can’t explain about the physical world. And that’s true of almost anything. Best to keep an open mind.

That turned into a bit more than I expected. I appreciate your comment, if it’s not already obvious! I hope you have a nice day, whenever you read this.

[MrOwnPut]

Sure, but in this case if it were a zoonotic jump in the lab it would be really really easy for them to have found the animal now wouldn't it?

[jacquesm]

You'd think so. You can draw your own conclusions from there.