Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
There was an interesting study released yesterday on the genetic diversity of the earliest coronavirus cases. Based on the evidence in the paper, it's unlikely that the earliest SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans came from a single source (as you'd expect with a lab leak). There were two distinct lineages in the samples taken in the first couple of weeks of the pandemic with mutations that would have been unlikely to have occurred in humans in such a short period of time. So based on that, the authors suggest that the most plausible explanation is that the virus was circulating in animals long enough to produce the mutations, and then there were multiple independent zoonotic introductions in Wuhan, two of which were successful (for lack of a better word) at producing spread within humans.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337
Also of note, at least one of the co-authors of the paper had in the past publicly called for an open and independent investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and said we cannot dismiss the lab leak hypothesis. So this likely isn't a case of scientists trying to find evidence to support a preferred conclusion. |
However, it doesn't take much to conclude that the Virus originating separately in two places and then emerging at the same time is basically impossible. The study is actually stating that both lineages have a common origin.
So, to clarify, the study is in fact clearly saying that there was a single source.
The notion that the virus passed through animals is not inconsistent with lab theories. One of many examples:
https://www.science.org/content/arti...de-mice-sicker