CharonY

I think that is also very true for other natural sciences, even if they are more conceptional rather than mathematical (as in Bio).

I was under the impression that while WIV had a BSL4 fairly recently, they did previously a lot of agricultural and environmental microbiological research, which would be BSL1/2. While I do not know their current organization, I would be surprised if they gave up all those laboratories. Edit: I got curious and checked their website, in addition to the BSL4 facility (from which leaks are highly unlikely) there are two BSL3 facilities (more likely, breaches happened in the UK) and 17 BSL2 facilities. Animal samples would likely be handled in those. So at least from the available information I do not think that we can conclude that the reports specifically refer to leaks from the BSL4 facility. Though admittedly, I have not been following the news very closely, as I do not think that there are a lot insights to be gained from this.

That is a good point and AFAIK neither report (FBI or DoE_ was made public, which makes everything a bit speculative. However, most public health folks I have been talking to focus on accidental leaks from low security breaches (i.e. from collections) and gain of function research was generally not considered one of the high likelihood scenarios. You are mixing up different metrics and I responded specifically to your comment that even now it is not that much more infectious. Taking your latter metric, which refers to the basic reproductive rate of the virus, Omicron is estimated to have an R0 of around 8-10, which makes it almost 10 times as infectious than its original variant. Some of the newer Omicron sub-variants are likely a tad higher, but it is hard to assess at this point as many folks have been vaccinated and/or infected. If you talk about likelihood of getting infected within a household (i.e. household secondary attack rates), you are more looking at metrics reflected by the effective reproductive number, which considers factors that may affect the likelihood of transmission (e.g. isolation, masking, vaccination etc.). In Omicron, the first wave had a huge infection rate, especially in areas which controlled the previous variants but after the first couple of variants, the transmission levelled off a bit (still hat a decently high rate), as transient immunity was gained in the population.

Eh, the Omicron variant has a very high transmission rate, which is why its presence is ubiquitious now.

Both values indicate different things. The 98% similarity is, IIRC based on comparing coding regions (genes) only, while the 2%, if accurate, likely refers to differences in the overall DNA sequences. Historically for prokaryotes we used 70% DNA-DNA hybridization similarity as a cut-off to define species. But again, the species concept is overall a very muddled one as is often applied differently, depending on the research question. What is this similarity based on. Total genome sequence, marker genes the percentage of shared genes, or...?

Yes, that is what the lab leak is all about. And John has mentioned the discrepancy between precautions between a BSL2 lab and wet market condition. While I consider a natural spillover more likely I will add two general points that might be in favour of lab spillage (I am going to ignore specific events as those are hard to link to a spillage in a meaningful way, IMO). First, BSL2 conditions assume that pathogens either are do not jump to humans (which is typically true for bat pathogens) or are not known to cause severe diseases and are not airborne (e.g. certain food-borne pathogens). So while security measures are vastly superior, they are not specifically geared to prevent airborne diseases with close to 100% certainty. Often, work is also conducted by graduate students with sometimes quite significant differences in quality of work. In fact there are reports where infections or spillages (e.g. improper disposal) have occurred in BSL2 labs (and much rarer also from BSL3 labs and even BSL4 labs) throughout the world, including UK and US that I am aware of. Assuming that the Wuhan lab did not have vastly superior protocols and controls in place, it is at least possible that something might have happened. That second is that the lab collected viruses, IIRC, so there is presumably a collection of a higher variety of viruses that you would find in the wet market. So as a whole (and compared to the artificial generation of the virus) it has at least a non-zero chance of happening. But again, I think most of the circumstantial evidence still point toward environmental spillage. If I speculate a bit more, I would actually assume that the early known clusters might happened significantly after the initial jump. The reason is based on the delay we had in detecting early SARS-CoV-2 infections through the world and where retrospective analyses of blood and wastewater points of longer circulation than previously suspected. Considering the initial fairly low rate of transmission (and uneven severity), I would think that it would be very hard to ever figure out when the first spillage occurred (especially it first circulated among young, healthy folks).

Of the virus. E.g. via accidental infection during work.

None of the groups are considering lab developed viruses as a realistic option. It is about accidental leaks.

I am not sure that during this pandemic (or any of the previous pandemics for that matter) lessons were really learned. We just keep on failing the class.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/who-deeply-frustrated-by-lack-of-us-transparency-on-covid-origin-data/ Even if such an assessment was weightier, the DOE's lean toward the lab leak hypothesis is still a minority view within the US intelligence community. Of nine intelligence community entities that have reviewed SARS-CoV-2 origin data, only two—the DOE and the FBI—have tilted toward a lab leak. Five favor the hypothesis of a natural "spillover" event from wild animals (four agencies and the National Intelligence Council), while the remaining two entities say there is not enough data to sway opinions toward either hypothesis.

Yes of course, but though I think getting certain things right with local nuances requires a lot of effort (but then it depends on how deep you want to go the authentic route). But I think that is a separate discussion to (happily) geek out on.

I think, that they do not assign probability, it is more likely an assessment of whether natural or wet market exposure is more likely or lab leak. The low confidence indicates that the evidence level for the decision is low.

As I am sure you know BSL2 is more enhanced than a regular 101 (which generally are BSL1). And most animal viruses work (that are not known to infect humans) are handled at BSL2 containment levels. FBI and DoE both are swinging towards lab leak as the probable source with low to moderate confidence (indicating lack of evidence), whereas four other agencies swing toward natural exposure (also low confidence) and three further which are undecided. So basically we do not know. I am not too surprised that FBI and DoE are thinking more in terms of lab-leak as they are more in tune with specifically these types of risk.

It depends on where you are, I think. Some restaurants have to have their ingredients delivered by specialized importers. While things are a bit easier specific seafood and certain vegetables can be rather tricky to get in high quality. Then there are of course specialized items soy sauces from specific brewers which you might not find in regular grocery stores and so on. There is also the topic of authenticity which often boils down to local family traditions (hence the cultural aspects) which sometimes is not well captured based on recipes you find. Also, certain dishes take a really long time to prepare and/or require specialized equipment. Not a knock on your wife, but contrary to what I stated earlier, when we go away from general cooking and are talking about specialties, there is often a skill gap due to preparing and optimizing dishes over years.

I think what folks have not realized is that our knowledge in functional genomics has turned the entire nurture vs nature debate on its head. In the past, there was often a kind of genetics first assumption, in which certain traits conditions etc. where often assumed to be genetic. If for example a certain ethnic group showed something different, genetics was a plausible explanation. This was also a reason why GWAS were eagerly anticipated and were hoped to reveal the basis for many diseases, conditions and traits. This has fizzled out somewhat, and our improved understanding of functional genetics (and its dynamics) played a big role in explaining why that is the case. Realistically and increasingly folks would actually provide more stringent evidence of a genetic basis (after all, we finally can do that) before claiming a strong genetic basis. At minimum, the basic assumption should realistically be both, with a bit more bias on the nurture side, when it comes to dynamic behaviour.

That is a fantastic point and one of the many reasons big chains make me sad. Small restaurants often represent an important aspect of culture. Especially authentic "ethnic" food can be an incredible ambassador. Homogenized it us to me, a severe loss. That being said, it also seems economically almost inevitable, considering rising labour cost.

It really depends on the ecosystem of restaurants, though. Restaurant chains are increasingly replacing family restaurants. While the quality can vary in the latter, the former (especially large chains) use a lot of pre-processed food which tend to be higher in sugar and other rather unhealthy components. However, certain restaurants, especially those that traditional include a lot of vegetable in their dishes are likely to be fairly healthy. At least as long as they are not replaced by fast-food style variants. The main difference I found between mid-range restaurant chefs (i.e. where food is still more relevant than the whole dining experience) and really good homecooks is often just organization, sourcing of ingredients, speed and consistency.

Regular journals are listed in citation databases (e.g. web of science), which are also the foundation of impact factors. It can also help to check how frequently an article has been cited. Neither is perfect, but it is at least something.

I think an important aspect regarding homelessness is to look at their causes, rather than subscribing to a punitive "quick fix after it is broken" solution. There are of course quite a few, but certain things, such as a better social welfare system, can help to catch folks before they end up being homeless in the first place. Another interesting aspect is a lot of focus in this thread is on meth and opioid abuse, but the most common substance associated with homelessness is alcohol. However, substance abuse is often not the driving factor. Studies have shown different factors, often related to age. For example, a UK study found that in young folks, homelessness was associated with child abuse or general disruptive childhood experiences (e.g. family breakup). A factor that determines long-term homelessness that is often mentioned is whether they have a family home to return to. In adults, economic pressures are the most common explanation and determinants include e.g. access to social housing. Especially in older adults, disruptive personal events (job loss, death of family relative etc) have been more prevalent. As such there is no single preventative measure, but there are many areas where social or mental support, as well as general guidance might be preventative.

The critical difference here is consent.

I think the original comments mostly addressed the proposed solution as coming up with an actual solution is obviously much more difficult. However, Markus has outlined a realistic path, but as with most real solutions, they do not give the instant gratification vibe as those solutions outlined in OP promise (but never deliver).

In Finland the rate of homelessness was reduced from 20k to around 3k. It is not a seasonal thing. Exceptionalism is often used as an excuse not to change systems. Luckily, there are folks who are actually doing research on the matter instead giving up before doing anything. As mentioned, it is not a golden bullet, but cost is not the biggest issue. Homelessness incurs costs, too and many of the implemented programs are near cost neutral or are at least favourable compared to other measures.

Similar programs have been implemented in various sizes throughout Europe and NA. While it was not always a perfect success, especially in the short term, it does seem to be one of the most successful intervention strategy.

I think Markus explained very well why the proposal just would not solve the issue and others have chimed in on the legal ramifications. Now if we want to move into the realm of realistic solutions, there are studies on it that we can turn to, rather than trying tried and failed brute force methods. One of the key elements that Markus described is instilling motivation for change. We do know that force does not work. In fact, it may be very well what created a situation that benefits addiction in the first place. In Europe and Canada, there have been "housing first" initiatives, which aims to provide housing, not shelters and use that as a leverage to address e.g. substance abuse or mental illness. It is likely not a perfect solution, but it was found to be at least competitive in cost compared to other initiatives (especially when medical costs are considered) and compared to other measures shows at least trends in the right direction in terms of most indices (i.e. homelessness, health outcomes etc.). It does not work equally well for everyone, but it does move the needle in the right direction. On the other hand, even using historic knowledge using force on people for their own good on that scale and without individual consultations and deliberations has mostly resulted in trauma and even atrocities. I also note that OP has not shown any evidence how that has helped in the past, while others have mentioned negative outcomes. And this is fundamentally an issue if we deal with vulnerable or powerless populations using very simplified reasoning. This line of thought does not really take their perspective and trajectory into account, but it is strictly top-down level of thinking. If we remove them and do something magically it will all better, though what really changes is that one does not need to deal with them anymore. This magical thinking is of course only harmful to the people affected which unfortunately makes it very popular. We see similar reasoning for dealing with asylum seekers, folks tried to "help" folks by kidnapping kids into residential schools and/or forced adoptions, folks still try to coerce folks into unneeded medical procedures. The issue is that even if intentions were good (which at times is clearly disputable), it uses a very limited perspective of us vs them, assuming that our perspective and experience is the norm and if we forced everyone into that line, they would improve. Clearly this is not the case and betrays as rather limited perspective on the complexity of the matter.

If you want to argue from the medical side, there is a thing called consent. This supersedes quite a few of the other considerations. Using your argument, it seems you would be also in favor of forcible vaccinations and mandatory diets?