Distinguo - Clear communication about critical facts.

Woof.  Been a long time since I have read a calm, engaged, rational, evidence based discussion on a hot topic.  Even among reasonable thinkers, too often the hotness of the topic is negatively correlated with quality of the discussion.  

From “The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is being seriously questioned” by Yaroslav Pigenet.  After the first few months of Covid-19, this has become less topical though it remains highly relevant and consequential, possibly tactically, certainly strategically.  

Popular theories at the time posited Chinese wet markets, simple random transmission, accidental release from a research site, and deliberate release from a research site.  There were others.

When faced with a new hypothesis, I always try and do an initial filter.  It is Possible, Plausible, and Probable.  Once you are in the Probable category then you are dealing with degrees of probability based on the quality and extent of evidence - Some Evidence, Some Credible Evidence, Substantial Evidence, The Preponderance of Evidence, Reasonable Man, Clear and Convincing, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  

The nature and quality of arguments represent a pretty steep pyramid.  Most arguments are, at best, Possible.  Some are Plausible.  Only a few are Probable.  And of those that are Probable, very, very few can get to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  Most linger in the limbo of Some Credible Evidence. 

Unimpeachable evidence is just plain pretty rare and we all get along based on emotional opinions spiced with some facts.  As posted a few days ago, We are all hunting for rational reasons for believing in the absurd.  And, regrettably, the mainstream media is blind to all of this.  For them, the world is binary and certain.  Evidence be damned.

Back to Pigenet's piece.  Full of level-headed questions and discussions.  Much less overt political or polemical posturing.  Much more truth-seeking.  

Nearly a year after the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was identified, researchers have yet to determine how it “jumped species” to infect humans. Virologist Étienne Decroly discusses the various hypotheses, including that of an accidental leak from a laboratory.

At a time when researchers are racing against the clock to develop viable vaccines and treatments, why is it so important to understand the genealogy of the virus behind the Covid-19 pandemic?

Étienne Decroly:1 After SARS-CoV in 2002 and MERS-CoV in 2012, SARS-CoV-2, which was quickly identified as causing Covid-19, is the third human coronavirus responsible for a severe respiratory syndrome to have emerged in the past 20 years. We are now quite familiar with this family of viruses, which circulate primarily among bats, and whose zoonotic transfer occasionally triggers epidemics among humans. It is therefore crucial to understand how this pathogen crossed the species barrier and became easily transmissible from human to human. It is essential to study the evolutionary mechanisms and molecular processes involved in the advent of this pandemic virus in order to better anticipate potential outbreaks of this type, and to develop therapeutic and vaccinal strategies.

Étienne Decroly seems a solid, even-handed scientist.

Do you think that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory?

É.D.: The hypothesis cannot be ruled out, given that SARS-CoV, which emerged in 2003, has escaped from laboratory experiments at least four times. In addition, there’s the fact that coronaviruses were a major area of study in the laboratories near the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak zone, where researchers were investigating, among other things, the mechanisms involved in crossing the species barrier. However, at this time, the analyses based on the phylogeny of the complete virus genomes yield no clear conclusions on the evolutionary origin of SARS-CoV-2.

I especially liked this. 

Isn’t there a risk that this last hypothesis may uphold the conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic?

É.D.: Studying the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific process that cannot be equated with a conspiracy theory. At the same time, I would like to underline the fact that, as long as no intermediate host has been identified, the scientific community cannot rule out the possibility of an accidental leak.

As of today, no scientific study has produced any clear evidence to confirm this. Nonetheless, the fact remains that further analyses are needed to reach a conclusion. The question of the natural or synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be made contingent on a political agenda or communication strategy. It deserves to be examined in light of the scientific data at our disposal.

Our hypotheses must also take into account what virology laboratories are capable of doing at this stage, and the fact that the manipulation of potentially pathogenic virus genomes is a common practice in certain laboratories, in particular for studying how viruses cross the species barrier.

This is one of the few obviously political/emotional questions by the interviewer.  It is certainly not unrepresentative of an impassioned but fortunately small minority of headline makers who want to shut down all research, evidence, an discussion, in case it might upset some people or disadvantage a particular ideology they favor.  

A great interview and they end up at the end pretty much where I see the evidence as well.  We have a lot of Possible scenarios, and a few which are Plausible.  But the Plausible scenarios are resting mostly on either "Some Evidence" or "Some Credible Evidence."  Beyond that, we don't have much that is solid.  We just don't know.