I have been asked by some — Do you think that Covid-19 came from a lab? Did it come from the P4 facility in Wuhan? Could it be man-made? Rumors of it coming from the P4 were circulating in early February — long before we were aware it had already reached the US. While I suspect it is not man-made, as nature has proven to be more adept at making lethal viruses, this BBC story depicts the possibilities in an even-handed manner that tells the story of Wuhan. It is one of several image intense stories that have been written about coronavirus that are very effective at keeping the readers’ attention.
Finding the source of the virus is not just a question of academic interest. If Sars-CoV-2 has come from a reservoir of infection in a particular animal species, then of course, it could continue to pose the risk of new outbreaks.
In mid-May, the World Health Organization passed a resolution calling for an international effort to trace the likely intermediate animal host. It has just announced it has been given permission to send a team of investigators to China for this purpose. But scientists agree it may not be an easy task.
Ironically, it is the genetic make-up of Sars-CoV-2 that has itself helped fuel the lab-leak theory.
Some subsequent studies, including one by Prof Shi, suggest that there is something different about its genome compared to other known coronaviruses of a similar type.
Its spike proteins – the pointy bits of the “crown” that latch onto the cells of an infected host – seem to bind extremely well to human cells.
While most viruses need time to adapt to a new host, Sars-CoV-2 appears to have been highly infectious from the beginning of the outbreak.
One paper compared the new outbreak with the original Sars epidemic. It found that Sars-CoV-2 was already “pre-adapted” for human infection.
The virus’ spike proteins also have a feature, unusual in Sars-type coronaviruses, known as a “furin cleavage site”. These are thought likely to increase the efficiency with which the virus can penetrate the human cells, take them over and replicate inside them.
It is this combination of factors – the WIV’s proximity to the outbreak, the kind of scientific work it was involved in, and the seemingly unusual nature of the virus itself – that have led to the highly controversial alternative to the natural “spillover” theory.
The work of the WIV, in collecting large numbers of bat coronaviruses and experimenting on them, has not been a lone venture.
It has been part of a major international effort focused on the growing risk of spillover events and the threat of new, human pandemics.
Some of Wuhan’s research has involved collaborations with US scientists and the backing of generous amounts of US funding.
And its creation of chimeric viruses - the stitching together of parts of the genomes of different viruses to make new ones - uses an easily accessible technique commonplace in labs around the world.
Such research has been the subject of an intense disagreement between scientists about the benefits and risks of such research.
Supporters say it can help us to anticipate how viruses might emerge in the wild and has the potential to help with the development of medicines and vaccines.
Those against, say it risks doing the exact opposite.
I highly recommend reading the whole article. It asks a lot of important questions and shares what was found in China and what that government seems unwilling to share and how it exerts scare tactics to keep its citizenry silent. I would say the US has done the opposite — promote conspiracy theories in an effort to drown out the truth in the noise.
It is important that we keep asking questions as we seek out the truth. This virus has proven to be a stealthy adversary that threatens authoritarian and democratic countries alike. We need to learn from each others’ experiences as we seek the path forward out of this time of great loss and change.
PS — For a look at predictions for technology in a Post-Covid world, try here.