February 2023 Coronavirus Updates

[Gloria27]

Lab leak finally confirmed:

 

[josieKat]

I'm extremely frustrated with the reporting on this. I don't actually have a personal opinion either way, but here is a snippet from one report from CNN (I picked the first link, but its been repeated in many many places):

"The US Department of Energy has assessed that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report.

Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.

Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion."

Many many sources are saying the same thing - that it most likely came from a lab leak, and yet the conclusion was low confidence, i.e. that the info is unreliable to come to a strong conclusion. The latter does not actually allow for the former conclusion to be stated the way everyone seems to be doing.

It's like a scientist saying that the data is not completely inconsistent with one particular theory, but that there is also no definitive pattern that indicates that theory is correct, and then reporters screaming "scientists report that this theory is right!".

 

[missy]

I'm extremely frustrated with the reporting on this. I don't actually have a personal opinion either way, but here is a snippet from one report from CNN (I picked the first link, but its been repeated in many many places):

"The US Department of Energy has assessed that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report.

Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.

Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion."

Many many sources are saying the same thing - that it most likely came from a lab leak, and yet the conclusion was low confidence, i.e. that the info is unreliable to come to a strong conclusion. The latter does not actually allow for the former conclusion to be stated the way everyone seems to be doing.

It's like a scientist saying that the data is not completely inconsistent with one particular theory, but that there is also no definitive pattern that indicates that theory is correct, and then reporters screaming "scientists report that this theory is right!".

Exactly. We still don’t know.
:/

 

[Gloria27]

I'm extremely frustrated with the reporting on this. I don't actually have a personal opinion either way, but here is a snippet from one report from CNN (I picked the first link, but its been repeated in many many places):

"The US Department of Energy has assessed that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report.

Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.

Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion."

Many many sources are saying the same thing - that it most likely came from a lab leak, and yet the conclusion was low confidence, i.e. that the info is unreliable to come to a strong conclusion. The latter does not actually allow for the former conclusion to be stated the way everyone seems to be doing.

It's like a scientist saying that the data is not completely inconsistent with one particular theory, but that there is also no definitive pattern that indicates that theory is correct, and then reporters screaming "scientists report that this theory is right!".

Yeah, they let is sit for a while, so people got used to the ideas circulating even back then.
Imagine the uproar if they admitted this two years ago.
It's not just a lab in Wuhan, it's THE lab, the one funded by...nevermind, it will come out eventually.

 

[missy]

The latest​ ​

"
Debate about the origins of the pandemic returned to the news with the report Sunday of a new assessment by the Energy Department which concluded with “low confidence” that the virus was most likely spread by an accidental laboratory leak in China. The updated assessment, in a classified intelligence report first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is said to be based on new intelligence not yet disclosed by officials. U.S. intelligence agencies remain divided over the origins of the pandemic. The department joins the FBI in backing the lab-leak theory. Meanwhile, four other agencies and a national intelligence panel believe that the virus likely emerged through natural transmission. The CIA and another agency that officials wouldn’t name remain undecided.

WSJ News Exclusive | Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

The U.S. agency’s revised assessment of how the pandemic started is based on new intelligence.

www.wsj.com

There isn’t enough evidence to recommend more than one coronavirus shot per year for the elderly and people with weakened immune systems, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s panel of independent vaccine advisers said last week. The group supported an annual booster campaign, which will probably take place in the fall, Reuters reports.

Vaccine maker Moderna is paying the National Institutes of Health $400 million for using a chemical technique developed by government and academic researchers in its mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine. The company made roughly $36 billion selling it during the pandemic, the New York Times reports.

​ The Food and Drug Administration authorized the first combination test for the flu and coronavirus that is fully performed at home, my colleague Laurie McGinley reports.​ The agency granted emergency use authorization to the Lucira Covid-19 & Flu Test, a single-use kit that provides results from a nasal swab in about 30 minutes. The test is for people with symptoms of a respiratory tract infection, and can be purchased without a prescription by anyone 14 or older. The test could be particularly helpful in winters like this one with flu, covid-19 and RSV jockeying to inflict an array of miserable symptoms. Before now, no at-home test for flu has been available. Instead, people are usually tested at a physician’s office or urgent care clinic, and other combination flu-coronavirus tests typically require that samples be sent to a lab for analysis, Laurie notes. A group of doctors calling themselves The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance first championed ivermectin as a “miracle” coronavirus treatment. It failed to live up to the hype. Now, they are promoting the anti-parasitic drug to prevent and treat the flu and RSV despite lack of scientific evidence that it works, my colleague Lauren Weber reports.​ But there is no clinical data in humans to support using ivermectin to treat any of the illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical experts, which strongly advise against using it. Health officials warn that ivermectin, commonly taken as a pill, can interact with medications such as blood thinners and that overdosing can result in gastrointestinal symptoms and neurological effects. "​

 

[missy]

"​

Stolen Lives: The Reality of Living with Long Covid​

February 27, 2023

Long Covid is affecting an estimated two million people in the UK; however, both the general population and the UK government have continued to overlook its impacts. This eBook sheds light on the life-changing condition​

Long-term conditions, such as diabetes, arthritis and heart disease, account for the lion’s share of a country’s disease burden and healthcare use. However, their management, particularly over the longer term, tends to be neglected in funding, research, or clinical practice. Enter stage left Long Covid, affecting an estimated two million people in the UK: a new, post-infectious condition with a broad definition, unclear mechanisms, and evidence-based treatments yet to be determined. As well as facing some of the same challenges as before the pandemic, Long Covid also offers opportunities to change perceptions and approaches to long-term conditions.
As with any area of healthcare, in both research and clinical care, we should be guided by people with lived experience, their carers, the public, and clinical and academic experts, but this has not always happened historically. In the case of Long Covid, patients not only coined the term and helped to define the disease; they have tirelessly continued to advocate for “recognition, research, and rehabilitation” from the early pandemic. They have shown experts that future pandemic planning should involve greater consideration of longer-term effects and the patient voice.
STIMULATE-ICP (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways), funded by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research, is a two-year research effort to learn more and do more for people with Long Covid. It has involved universities, hospitals, industry, third-sector, policymakers, and patient organisations from around England. Within the STIMULATE-ICP study, there is an 11-strong patient and public involvement panel, which has informed the research, from grant application through to implementation and dissemination of findings.
As the study progressed, it became clear that beyond those with lived experience informing our research, we needed to document their rich, lived experience. This book represents that ideal, through the joint efforts of eleven people with Long Covid, sharing their anguish and aspirations. These accounts are part of the research process. They are also part of the historic record of our health systems’ greatest challenge in the last century: the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe this work can inform learning and care improvement of Long Covid and long-term conditions.

Protecting patients and personal accounts​

A couple of points of order before we begin. First, throughout this eBook, if you see an asterisk next to someone’s name, it means we have changed their identity to protect their privacy. In such cases, if a photo has been included, it will be a metaphor chosen by them to represent their lives before/after contracting Long Covid. Secondly, almost everyone is familiar with the 2020 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19. In this eBook, we use various commonly used alternatives, such as Covid; Covid 19; Covid-19 and COVID-19, but however they are used, they are shorthand for SARS-Cov-2.
This brings us nicely to Long Covid.

Image: © franckreporter | iStock

What is Long Covid?​

Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define Long Covid as any new or ongoing symptoms that last for four weeks or more after the start of acute Covid-19. There are differing opinions on the proportion of those who experience Long Covid after developing Covid-19, and numbers range from 5% to 50%.
However, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimates that, as of November 2022, around 2.1 million people have been living with Long Covid for more than four weeks; of those, 1.1 million have been living with Long Covid for at least a year, and a further 507,000 have been living with Long Covid for at least two years. To put things into perspective, Multiple Sclerosis is thought to affect 130,000 people in the UK.
Researchers have identified 203 symptoms associated with Long Covid, affecting every organ system in the body. NICE lists the most common symptoms as; fatigue, dizziness, chest pain, cognitive impairment, anxiety, and depression. Long Covid affects many areas of sufferers’ lives, not only the physical symptoms and debilities but relationships, work, finances, self-image, mental health and emotional well-being. Although Long Covid is a new condition, with little information available to sufferers or clinicians, a recent review of all Long Covid research states, “Long COVID is a multisystemic illness encompassing ME/CFS, dysautonomia, impacts on multiple organ systems, and vascular and clotting abnormalities. It has already debilitated millions of individuals worldwide, and that number is continuing to grow. On the basis of more than two years of research on Long COVID and decades of research on conditions such as ME/CFS, a significant proportion of individuals with long COVID may have lifelong disabilities if no action is taken. Diagnostic and treatment options are currently insufficient, and many clinical trials are urgently needed to rigorously test treatments that address hypothesized underlying biological mechanisms, including viral persistence, neuroinflammation, excessive blood clotting and autoimmunity”. Whilst some people recover well from Long Covid with time, many do not and there remains much uncertainty around the condition.
Efforts to try and understand Long Covid have been made by researchers, scientists, and clinicians. However, patient experience steers this research, and it is important to give those living with Long Covid a voice. The STIMULATE-ICP research study has patient and public involvement (PPI) at its heart, looking at inequalities in healthcare, including access, treatment, and outcomes for those with Long Covid.
We have seen many grassroots organizations emerge, founded, and run by those with Long Covid. These organizations have done outstanding work advocating for recognition of, and research into, Long Covid; we’ve also seen people with Long Covid produce short films, poems, and blogs about their struggles, whilst others have advocated for more recognition by speaking out in the media. Despite fatigue, pain, and how hard it can be to get things done, they have raised their voices and demanded to be heard. This eBook contains bravely contributed personal accounts of the STIMULATE-ICP study’s PPI group and their experiences of living with Long Covid; they have used their scarce and precious energy to educate and help others with the condition.

Chapter One: Medical Experiences​

There is no test specifically to diagnose Long Covid; it is a condition diagnosed after medical tests to eliminate other possible causes for the patient’s presenting symptoms. However, that’s easier said than done, and if we learned anything about the wider medical community during the Covid-19 Pandemic, it was its overall response to symptoms that they couldn’t immediately identify an underlying medical cause for. Sufferers of other chronic illnesses, such as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), have, for years, been stigmatised and told that their symptoms are “in their head” or that they’re purely psychological in nature. This is especially true for women who complain of such illnesses.

Unsurprisingly, we’ve seen the same happen to those with Long Covid. Often – especially in the case of those who developed the disease early on in the pandemic – those who went to Accident and Emergency (A&E) or their GPs complaining of symptoms were told that there was nothing wrong with them, or that their symptoms were a manifestation of anxiety. Clinicians would often insist on these diagnoses and would usually add them to the patient’s medical record, potentially jeopardising their future care. For all our scientific advancement as a society, a large number of clinicians choose to question the validity of their patient’s symptoms and their mental health rather than acknowledge that they could be suffering from an as-yet unknown disease which cannot be detected in standard tests. Some patients with Long Covid have even been admitted to psychiatric wards due to their symptoms.

Several members of the STIMULATE-ICP study’s PPI group, have spoken about difficulties faced in navigating the medical system and some of the obstacles and challenges they experienced when trying to obtain a definitive diagnosis.

Claire, specialist nurse​

Claire, 53, is a specialist nurse who caught Covid-19 in December 2020 and has had Long Covid since, having lost her job as a result of the illness. She lives with her partner, who also has Long Covid, and her daughter, in Essex. She says:

Claire, in an image taken in August 2021, whilst she was struggling with Long Covid symptoms. Like other chronic illnesses, Long Covid is an invisible disability
Many in the STIMULATE-ICP PPI group have reported poor experiences while trying to find out what was wrong with them due to their clinicians’ disbelief or minimising of the patients’ reported Long Covid symptoms. These interactions deny the reality of the patient’s experiences and can lead to poorer health outcomes. They also damage the patient’s trust in their doctors, as they may fear reprisals if they challenge the medical professional’s assertions.

Imagine that you couldn’t walk, were in pain all the time, and suspected you’d broken your leg; imagine you had to walk six miles to get to a doctor, causing even more pain and doing more damage to your already mangled limb; imagine that your doctor refused to x-ray it, and told you that your pain and deformed leg were due to anxiety, not a broken bone; now, imagine that you paid privately for an x-ray, which clearly showed a broken bone, but you were told that despite this, your difficulties were unexplained, and were therefore attributed to psychiatric problems.

Instead of a broken leg, now imagine that you have Long Covid. Imagine every interaction with anyone or anything makes you feel so debilitated that you can barely think or speak afterwards. Imagine sky- high blood pressure, the crippling, utter exhaustion of fatigue, severe headaches that last for weeks, and not being able to express yourself because your brain won’t work properly. Each time you try to get help, you’re shut down, minimised, and accused of fabricating illness or being mentally ill; that is exactly my experience. I was minimised, ignored and gaslighted due to good-old-fashioned misogyny and my ‘daring’ to question my consultant when my condition fell outside of the limits of his knowledge.

I was in good health when I caught Covid in January 2021. I felt I was starting to get better in late February, but in March, my health took a turn for the worse; I had hypertension (high blood pressure), tachycardia (fast heart rate), severe headaches, hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar), black urine and diarrhoea; I was also collapsing and fainting a lot, and having episodes of facial and limb weakness, with difficulty speaking and understanding. I told my GP that I felt like I was having transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), that the ‘brain fog’ felt more like a brain injury.

In March 2021, my partner called 999 and paramedics attended me for a hypertensive crisis. Only telephone appointments were available with my GP, so I told him again about the hypertension, suspected TIAs and hyperglycaemia and requested an urgent neurology referral for further investigation. I also requested a gastroenterology referral to investigate the diarrhoea – I was to lose 40 kilograms of weight (that’s around six-and-a-half stone) over the next few months. Even though I was taking rehydration salts and Imodium every day, the diarrhoea continued, often as much as 20 times a day. My faecal calprotectin levels were above 1800 μg/mg (the normal range is up to 50 μg/mg.) My GP prescribed medications but didn’t refer me to any specialists as he said anxiety was causing all of my symptoms.

It wasn’t until October 2021 that I saw my GP face- to-face. My Long Covid Clinic physiotherapist was concerned about my heart rate and very high blood pressure, so she made the appointment and took me there. Whilst waiting to be let into the surgery, I collapsed on the doorstep; I’d been standing for about three minutes when I felt very sick and faint, and my legs just went from under me. I was wheeled into the doctor’s office on a wheelchair and they checked my vital signs; these were all way out of normal range, but most settled within about 30 minutes while I was at the surgery.

My GP, having witnessed my collapse and seen my blood pressure variability and heart rate so high, then proceeded to tell me that all my symptoms were probably caused by anxiety. I’d had mild to moderate anxiety and depression in the past, but even though I told him this was very different, he just shrugged and repeated, “it’s just anxiety”.

My GP then ‘forgot’ to refer me to neurology, despite my reports of continuing severe neurological and cognitive symptoms (including fainting, collapses, difficulty speaking, reading, writing, understanding, transient limb weakness and facial numbness etc.), so in December 2021, I paid privately to see a consultant neurologist; he organised a brain MRI for me, which clearly showed I’d had an infarct (stroke) in my right parietal lobe.

However, at my second appointment with the private neurologist, after discussing the MRI findings, I was told that there was no physical reason for the neurological symptoms I was describing. When I asked what could possibly be causing these extremely debilitating and worrying neurological problems, he seemed suddenly annoyed and frustrated with me. I left the appointment feeling like I’d done something wrong, but I couldn’t understand what. I soon found out; I’d asked him a question outside of his medical knowledge, and the neurologist’s letter to my GP advised him to refer me ‘urgently’ to psychiatry.

My GP didn’t feel the need to refer me to a psychiatrist, but the damage was done for me – the trust I’d always had in doctors was gone. I’d used every ounce of energy and brainpower to try and find out what the hell was wrong with me, and the very professionals I was turning to for help were basically calling me mad, insinuating that I was making it up or exaggerating.

By contrast, when I eventually saw the gastroenterology consultant, he was fantastic.
My colonoscopy didn’t show anything abnormal, but based on my reported symptoms and weight loss, he referred me for further investigations and scans, which showed up other issues. I have now had surgery and been treated for these, and it’s made a real difference in the quality of my daily life.

Image: © Jikaboom | iStock

Lucia, writer and university lecturer​

Lucia, 38, is a writer and university lecturer. She lives in Edinburgh, with her partner and carer, Michael. She contracted Covid and Long Covid in April 2020. She says, Medical professionals told me my illness was likely psychosomatic, that I was anxious. A consultant called me a “rather anxious young woman”, misattributing my age in his report, while a senior consultant shared that “many women choose to stay unwell” so as to remove themselves from the pressures of their everyday life when all I wanted was to dive right back into that life. When my GP sent an ambulance to my house because of exacerbated symptoms, one of the paramedics made a comment that “we’re seeing an epidemic of paranoia” as well.

Soon enough, I learned that conditions such as mine are sadly more often than not met with scepticism. This type of misguided response causes considerable distress in patients, even harm, in a profession that has sworn to primo non nocere or, ‘First, do no harm.’ It is obvious that a paradigm shift is needed in terms of how we perceive chronic illness and disability. This is a responsibility that doesn’t only fall on the medical field but on society as a whole.

Jane*, a freelancer from Yorkshire​

Jane*, 32, is a freelancer from Yorkshire. She contracted Covid and Long Covid in March 2020. She says;

My severe illness has made me so disabled I can no longer walk, and no longer work. I’m too ill to talk to friends regularly or to socialise. I spend almost my entire life on my kitchen floor – I’m not well enough to go up the stairs or go outside. All this and the doctors still act like I’m a time waster, whining about a minor cold. When I was honest about how ill I was or how desperate I was to anyone – I was treated like dirt, told I was anxious or crazy or depressed. The only help I was offered was talking therapy over and over again.

"​

 

[missy]

"

Brain Structure, Widespread Connectivity Changes Seen With Long COVID​

— Gray matter atrophy, hyperconnectivity in patients with anxiety, depression​

by Judy George, Deputy Managing Editor, MedPage Today

Gray matter atrophy and severe disruption of brain functional connectivity were seen in long COVID patients with anxiety and depression about 3 months after acute mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Compared with people who were asymptomatic after SARS-CoV-2 infection, long COVID patients with both anxiety and depression showed limbic atrophy and a widespread pattern of hyperconnectivity, reported Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas in São Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues, in an abstract released in advance of the American Academy of Neurologyopens in a new tab or window annual meeting.



The magnitude of changes suggest an association with cognitive dysfunction, they observed.

"Our results suggest a severe pattern of changes in how the brain communicates as well as its structure, mainly in people with anxiety and depression with long COVID syndrome, which affects so many people," Yasuda said in a statement. "Our findings are concerning, as even people with a mild case of COVID-19 are showing changes in their brains months later."

The findings add to the growing body of evidence that show brain structure and function are affected by SARS-CoV-2, noted Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the clinical epidemiology center and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System, who wasn't involved with the study.

"Anxiety and depression are manifestations of the neurologic damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 and this abstract provides further objective evidence of structural and functional alteration in the brain following SARS-CoV-2 infection," Al-Aly told MedPage Today. "Our understanding of this is evolving, but clearly infection with SARS-CoV-2 can affect the brain."



Many studies have shown brain problems persistopens in a new tab or window long after acute infection, with some symptoms lasting as long as 2 yearsopens in a new tab or window, but why this happens isn't clear.

"Some hypothesize that microglia are activated in some people with SARS-CoV-2 and that the inflammatory response that ensues creates a milieu that is disruptive to neuronal health," Al-Aly said. "Other hypotheses revolve around autoimmunity. At this point, we are still learning more and more every day."

Yasuda and colleagues evaluated 254 individuals with mild COVID-19 a median of 82 days from RT-PCR test with Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory tests. The overall sample included 177 women with a median age of 41.

Participants were separated into asymptomatic (152 people) and simultaneous (102 people with simultaneous anxiety and depression symptoms based on test scores) groups.

Gray matter atrophy was assessed with voxel-based morphometry comparing the two groups with 148 healthy controls on MRI. Connectivity data were evaluated with resting-state MRI of 12 large-scale brain networks in 84 people in the asymptomatic group, 70 people in the simultaneous group, and 90 controls. The researchers reported results with P<0.05.



In the simultaneous group, gray matter atrophy was seen in the left cingulum (86 voxels) and the inferior frontal lobe (91 voxels). The asymptomatic group had no gray atrophy.

The simultaneous group presented a widespread, bilateral pattern of hyperconnectivity involving all 12 networks; the asymptomatic group showed hyperconnectivity involving only five networks.

"This abstract, along with all the other evidence, is a compelling reason to double our effort to further understand long COVID and its various sequelae or consequences," Al-Aly said.

"Understanding the long-term health effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection will not only help us understand long COVID, but more broadly will deepen our understanding of infection-associated chronic illnesses -- an entity that has been ignored for more than 100 years," he added. "It will also help prepare us better for the next pandemic."



"

 

[missy]

"

Not Enough Data to Support Multiple Annual COVID Boosters, CDC Advisers Say​

By Aditya Samal
February 27, 2023

(Reuters) - There is not sufficient evidence to recommend more than one COVID-19 booster shot a year for older people and those with weakened immune systems, an expert advisory group to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Friday.
The COVID-19 working group of the CDC's Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices (ACIP) supported an annual booster campaign, likely in the fall, especially for populations considered at high risk, Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official who heads the group, said during a meeting of the agency's outside advisers.
The agency currently recommends older and immunocompromised people receive COVID booster shots more frequently since vaccine effectiveness usually wanes faster for those populations compared to younger people with robust immune systems.
In the spring of 2022, the CDC recommended immunocompromised and people over age 50 receive an additional shot if they had received their first booster at least four months earlier.

The CDC advisers did not vote on new recommendations for how the COVID-19 shots should be administered on Friday.








"

 

[missy]

“

COVID-19 Origin Debate​

KATELYN JETELINA FEB 28

I’ve been asked by many to comment on the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate and new Wall Street Journal article. And, honestly, I don’t want to touch this topic with a 10-foot pole. But, I will leave you with a few thoughts:

1. The origin of COVID-19 is an ongoing scientific debate. Scientific consensus has not settled. We can all agree that the Wuhan market was an amplification event (i.e. super spreader), but I don’t think we will ever know how it got there because we’ve missed the window of opportunity for critical data. Disproving the lab leak will be close to impossible. This is a tragedy, but I look forward to seeing the ongoing science we can muster.
2. Transparency is key, and I don’t like how things have to be “leaked” to be known.
3. The debate is another example of false dichotomies. In reality, opinions range on a scale from “natural spillover” to “lab leak.” Perspectives fall somewhere within the spectrum of probabilities. I lean more towards natural spillover, but I’m certainly not 100%. (I’m a ~70% given some evidence released last year.) I think everyone should recognize where they land on this spectrum and why. Also recognize there are conflicts of interest all over the place.
   

   ​

   Spatial patterns of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan in December 2019 and January–February 2020. Source: Worobey et al., Science.
4. Many initially dismissed lab spillover because of the original messenger (Trump) and because it was wrapped up in other conspiracy theories, like being a Chinese bio-weapon. (The claim that the virus was engineered is clearly debunked. There’s scientific evidence that it wasn’t an intentional event.) I admit that privately I initially dismissed the idea of a lab leak because of these reasons, which I constantly self-reflect on. As a scientist, I can do better with this noise. We all can. And, we must.
5. Underlying all of this is that there is the possibility of a lab leak, and a possibility of a natural spillover, and a possibility of intentional lab leaks. We need to address all of these to ensure a safer future. I’m afraid we’re losing sight of this.

I’ve been spending the past few days with Dr. Rivers eating tacos, enjoying happy hour, and processing whatever the hell we’ve been through the past three years. During this time, she wrote the following balanced piece on this topic that I think is worth everyone’s time (see below).


“