Calculating probability: Researchers believe corona origins in the laboratory are possible

Enlarge image

Photo: Aleksandr Zubkov / Getty Images

The pandemic is over - discussions and speculation about how exactly it might have started are far from over.

Now researchers are presenting an analysis in the journal “Risk Analysis” in which they examined the likelihood of an unnatural origin for the virus in a laboratory.

They come to the conclusion that such a phenomenon could be more likely than a natural one.

The researchers criticize in their study that most studies have focused on a zoonotic origin.

However, clear evidence, such as an intermediate animal host, would be missing.

Now scientists from the USA and Australia have used a risk assessment method to calculate the probability of a natural or unnatural origin based on certain defined criteria.

The basis was previously published literature and other publicly available information such as data on deaths.

Their result: They couldn't prove that the virus was created in a laboratory.

However, the risk assessment showed that this possibility could not be ruled out and was even slightly more likely than that of a natural origin.

The method used was actually developed to distinguish natural epidemics from those that could be due to intentional biological attacks.

Researchers now focused particularly on the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak as a potential unnatural origin.

Method not developed for pandemics

Criteria that were given different weightings in the evaluation included, for example, the concentration in the environment or the speed of spread.

Based on the data, each of the points is assigned a value between 0 and 3, where 0 stands for "no data", 1 for "uncertain", 2 for "obvious abnormalities" and 3 for "clear indications", according to the study .

Two researchers assessed the criteria independently and they were then checked by two other experts.

These values ​​were then used for further calculations.

The researchers themselves write that there are some limitations to consider.

For example, the method has so far been used primarily on smaller outbreak scenarios and now for the first time on a pandemic.

Some criteria, such as the unusually rapid spread, were therefore generally rated higher.

This could have led to an overall higher score in the evaluation and could also have an impact on the conclusion.

The method was not originally developed for laboratory accidents.

In addition, the evaluation of the individual criteria could be subjective, which, according to the study, cannot be completely ruled out despite approaches to minimization.

China itself has always rejected speculation that the virus could have been created in a laboratory.

Last summer, a US Secret Service report became public that no evidence had been found to support the laboratory theory.

Two “Science” studies, for example, considered the thesis to be less likely than a natural origin as early as 2022.

The investigations have shown "that it is simply not plausible that this virus was introduced into the Wuhan market in any way other than through the wildlife trade," said one of the scientists involved, Michael Worobey from the University of Arizona.

The wildlife market in Wuhan, China, came into focus early on in the pandemic.

In the current study, the researchers rate the market in the category “High concentration of biological agents in the environment” with one point – “uncertain”.

Investigations into the origins of the pandemic had recently stalled, also because the World Health Organization (WHO) cannot carry out any further studies in the country due to China's resistance.

ani