Covid-19 likely to be man made

You are trying to argue against a known truth, I have shown studies on multiple virus emerging in that area. Wuhan is known to be an area where virus emerge, hence the location of the virology institute, hence the high probability of COVID being of zoonotic and COVID being one of many new strains of virus discovered near Wuhan (among thousands discovered worldwide) every year. This is similar to Markus arguing that users who haven't seen the IIS with their own eyes means it doesn't exist.

This truth is backed up by experts in virology around the world (not all of them).

Now, and this is where you'll struggle.

For your claim to be true, you need the experts who linked COVID to zoonotic origin and low probability of a lab leak to be either stupid or in a conspiracy. You then need to detail why the experts are stupid or detail why they are covering up for a virology institute that has been established since 1956 and what they have to gain from it. My guess is that you are trying to make the lab leak seem true in order to push a man-made theory (after all, even if it did leak from a lab, it's zoonotic origin was outside the lab, either near Wuhan or from samples taken to Wuhan). But then you have to explain why the dozens of other new strains (and bats when studied typically register hundreds of new virus variants as a quirk of their immune system) did or didn't leak from the institute and the chances that one of them would cause a worldwide pandemic with a virus of relatively low CFR but high ability to cripple health systems.

My guess is that this is as far as your journey will go and you will want to sit in and argue known truths about Wuhan.

Evidence was provided, that you predictably decide to rathole is on you, that you are deathly frightened of giving your own detailed explanation of what happened and whether there is a conspiracy or not (man-made or not, proof that the expert virologists are stupid or conspiring) is also on you.

That you are following the same pattern as every other conspiracy theorist who fails to make a point is also on you.

Eh?

Here is (already posted) multiple new virus variants found in Hubei:

Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Coronaviruses in Bats from China | Journal of Virology (asm.org)

As said, you can follow the papers produced annually from the institute if you want to find many (many) more.

Your theory is demonstrably false.

For what other reason was a virology institute established in Wuhan in 1956 do you think?

Why are all the virologists who claim that multiple new virus variants emerge from wet markets, such as in Wuhan, wrong?

You are still shying away from putting forward your own theories.

More new virus found in Hubei:

Two reassortant types of highly pathogenic H5N8 avian influenza virus from wild birds in Central China in 2016 - PMC (nih.gov)

Bat origin Coronavirus including Hubei (2015):

Bat origin of human coronaviruses | Virology Journal | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Diversity of CoronaVirus from bats, including Hubei (2017):

Extensive diversity of coronaviruses in bats from China - ScienceDirectv

Rich gene pool of CoronaVirus in Bats, including Hubei (2017):

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus | PLOS Pathogens

325 new virus strains catalogued from Hubei:

Virus Index (genome.jp)

That above is called an orgy of evidence, which means it must be a conspiracy ;)

So, this was planned 15 years before it happened? Or was interest piqued and more grants and money invested in bat research after SARS?

Another links dump to drown out your lack of evidence.

This is a quote from your third link

A large number of SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoV) have been detected in horseshoe bats since 2005 in different areas of China. However, these bat SARSr-CoVs show sequence differences from SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in different genes (S, ORF8, ORF3, etc) and are considered unlikely to represent the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV. Herein, we report the findings of our 5-year surveillance of SARSr-CoVs in a cave inhabited by multiple species of horseshoe bats in Yunnan Province, China

Again you are linking to viruses in a different province, over 1500km away. Perhaps you have confused Yunnan Province with Yunnan Mountain in Hubei Province.

Your last link is unintelligible.

You call this “an orgy of evidence” 2 swans and a duck over 30 years is a pretty tame orgy.

In your second link dump are you claiming that detection of an astrovirus in Wuhan, bearing in mind that astroviruses are found and indeed are common all over the world.

Astrovirus infections are ubiquitous and ∼90% of the human population aged >9 years presents with anti-HAstV-1 antibodies (Mitchell et al., 1999)

Do you believe this is evidence that the the fauna and environment of the locality of Wuhan contributed to this astrovirus?

This is getting ridiculous, anyway, from the third link:

And again, the point was that the institute was located where new diseases emerged from local fauna, there is an orgy of evidence showing diseases from local fauna of various types that post 2004 (SARS) extensively looked into bat populations from around China including near Wuhan.

And what is unintelligible about the genomic mapping of 325 new virus strains from Hubei province?

And now you're just blatantly avoiding questions being put to you while ignoring the reality of the world, following the pattern of your theorist forebearers.

But look, even if some people accept your alternative reality that Wuhan wasn't a source for novel virus, you need to explain this:

Fourth link I should have said. Did you confuse a province with a mountain?

You are the one claiming presence of a ubiquitous astrovirus as evidence of some unique fauna and environment (there are over 40,000 wet markets in China BTW) that was the the WIV is based in Wuhan.

You keep referring to my claim and what it requires to be true.

What claim of mine are you referring to?

They have been given more funding.

Time for GQP to show how crazy and insane they are.

Utterly predictable, like all those that came before you.

As I pointed out the two main Virology labs in the United States are in Galveston and Boston. Neither are capital cities, neither due to their environs.

As I have already stated, the Wuhan Institute of Virology only started research on bat viruses in 2004, 48 years after its foundation. Making your point about the reason for its location in 1956 being the proximity to samples of bat coronaviruses moot.

But, as said, assume that the lab wasn't there because viruses emerge in Wuhan, why would the majority of experts agree that SARS-COV2 had zoonotic origin likely from a Wuhan wet market? Why didn't they also think it weird that a new virus would emerge in Wuhan?

As I have already stated, The dangers of spillover in wet markets are known. The presence of a wet market in Wuhan cannot be claimed as the reason the Institute for virology was located there in 1956. There are some 44,000 wet markets in China. Experts would think it no less “weird” if a virus emerged in anyone of those.

Given that you mention bat samples being taken from 1800km away, I assume you have abandoned the man-made aspect of this entirely, so it's either zoonotic origin somewhere near Wuhan (or brought to Wuhan from another location in China or around the world) or zoonotic origin, brought to the lab and then leaked.

Most of the samples being researched in Wuhan were not local fauna, disproving your assertion that the location of the lab was due to researching local fauna.

I am not a virologist or scientist so I will bow to the superior knowledge of an expert with 50 years experience, who has access to specialist expertise and the best available data and information on the origins of Covid, Dr. Anthony Fauci, when he says he is not convinced that Covid 19 developed naturally.

Why does it have to be 'local' fauna? Isn't this supposed to be the primary research lab for all of China for viruses from such animals as bats etc?

The sample could have come from anywhere in China.

I'm addressing the question to you because there seems to be an implication in your posts that for it to be natural virus it must be from the local area, and you are using this to imply therefore for it to be a man made virus.

I'm pointing out that samples are brought to that lab from all over China.

So, do you accept that a sample of a natural virus could have been brought from outside the region to a lab in Wuhan, and accidentally leaked from there?

This is a question entirely germane to the current topic.

In 1956 it wasn't the study center for all of China. That came later.

It seems plausible that the presence of abundant and diverse biological specimens in the vicinity (including but not limited to bats) would be one of the factors in its siting. Necessary but not sufficient. They don't have to be studying bat coronaviruses to be studying bats / needing bats for study.

Why do you say it is necessary when it is not necessary at the other locations of virology labs mentioned previously?

It seems that when the Wuhan Institute of Virology was established their focus was on agricultural viruses and environmental microbe research, not viruses of local wild animals. It is unlikely therefore that local wild animals would have been a consideration in the location of the lab.

It seems more likely, as in other locations, that the viruses are brought to the lab, not that the labs are brought to the viruses.

“The predecessor of Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences was the Wuhan Institute of Microbiology, prepared to be built in 1956, jointly established by the famous virologist academician Gao Shangyin and the famous microbiologist academician Chen Huagui and a batch of older generation scientists, formally announced to be established in 1958, mainly engaged in agricultural virus and environmental microbe research.”

http://english.whiov.cas.cn/About_Us2016/Brief_Introduction2016/

The study of bat coronavirus (at BSL-2 so multiple labs can engage in this) only really kicked off after SARS, the reason it's at level 2 for bio-safety is that bat virus don't jump to humans and need an intermediate species such as you'd get at wet markets or out in the wild, hence why scientists see study of bats as a safe thing at BSL-2 (though some are arguing that BSL-3 should be used).

We could also include our definition of man-made to include "brought into contact purposely with an intermediate animal then leaked", the technology we have to manipulate virus doesn't yet extend to the genetic changes that SARS-COV2 has hence the consensus that it was zoonotic in origin (unless multiple labs in multiple countries run by multiple governments are hiding a secret that thousands of scientists would know about, I mean, there's the conspiracy, it's just not plausible).

Look, you claimed the Wuhan Institute of Virology was located in Wuhan because of local fauna and environment.

You then ignore all the points debunking your claim and instead try to claim I believe something that I haven’t claimed to believe

 “so you believe it was man-made”

You seem more interested in questioning beliefs I haven’t stated than in defending beliefs you have stated.

I don’t recall saying that Covid 19 was man made but if you can show me the quote where I said it, of course I will believe you.

Here is an article summarising Fauci’s comments on Covid origin and lab leak theory.

So to be clear you agree with the below - as this is what Fauci said in the article you linked:

“the most likely origin is from an animal species to a human but I keep an absolutely open mind that there may be other origins"

Yes, the most likely origin is from an animal species to a human but I keep an open mind as to the possibility of other origins.

I doubt Fauci is relying entirely on his own expertise here and rather the body of experts available to the CDC.

But as Ive said I keep an open mind.