A recent NYT article provides an almost textbook example of how bad reasoning can fuel conspiracy theories. The author claims to provide five pieces of evidence suggesting that Covid escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. In fact, none of the pieces of evidence are at all persuasive, and some are factually inaccurate. Here I’ll focus on the first piece of evidence cited, the inferences that we should draw from the fact that Covid happened in Wuhan.
The article shows a graph of the “hundreds of large cities” within about 1500 miles of the bat caves where Covid is thought to have originated:
Then we are led to believe that it would be an amazing coincidence if Covid were to naturally emerge in the one city in this region that just happened to have a major virology lab. But is this claim true?
In 1994, I got married in Beijing. Our honeymoon was spent in Wuhan and Chongqing. Is it an “amazing coincidence” that my honeymoon was spent in the city where Covid originated? As we will see, the answer is no.
A more pertinent example occurred in 2014, when virologist Eddie Holmes visited the animal market in Wuhan where Covid first spilled over to humans. He snapped a picture of a cage with a raccoon dog, and speculated that this is the sort of place where a future pandemic might emerge:
What’s even weirder — it turns out that one of the co-authors of the study, Eddie Holmes, had been taken to the Huanan market several years before the pandemic and shown raccoon dogs in one of the stalls. He was told, “This is the kind of place that has the ingredients for cross-species transmission of dangerous pathogens.”
So he clicks photos of the raccoon dogs. In one photo, the raccoon dogs are in a cage stacked on top of a cage with some birds in it.
And at the end of our sleuth work, we checked the GPS coordinates on his camera, and we find that he took the photo at the same stall, where five samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
I don’t know about you, but that seems like an even more major coincidence than the virus emerging in Wuhan.
The NYT article is wrong; Wuhan is not just one of hundreds of large cities, it’s a Chinese megacity. Southern China has four megacities (Wuhan, Chongqing, Chengdu, and Guangzhou/Shenzhen), or five if you view Guangzhou and Shenzhen as separate metro areas. They are all hundreds of miles from the so-called “bat caves”. Pandemics are far more likely to emerge in these places than in the hundreds of other Chinese cities. These cities have many affluent shoppers, and huge animal markets that attract exotic species from all over China. Also dense populations and lots of visitors from elsewhere. Places that are magnets for people and trade.
But let’s say I am wrong, and that there is nothing special about these four Chinese megacities. In that case, the lab leak proponents face another problem. Unlike with Covid (aka SARS-2), there is absolutely no dispute about how SARS-1 crossed over into humans back in 2002. It first showed up near a wild animal market in the Guangzhou metropolis. So people who reject my claim that southern Chinese megacities are special have merely traded one amazing coincidence for another. Now they have to explain why Covid emerged in the giant city of Guangzhou, and not one of hundreds of other southern Chinese cities.
Here are the facts:
SARS-1 is known to have crossed over in an animal market that was roughly 900 miles from the bat caves. There were intermediate animal hosts.
SARS-2 first showed up in people that worked and shopped in an animal market about 1000 miles from the bat caves. The famous virology lab was in a completely different part of the giant metro area.
Please apply Occam’s razor.
Most Americans have very limited knowledge of Chinese geography, and are therefore easily persuaded by the sort of argument provided in the NYT. So consider an American analogy. Imagine a pandemic emerges among people who work and shop near an animal market in Flushing, a Chinese area of NYC. Pandemics are known to have previously begun in such markets. Then someone on the internet points out that the pandemic began in “New York City”, which also happens to contain a hugely important virology lab at Columbia University. Maybe there was a lab leak, and the infected scientist just happened to go way across town to do some shopping at an animal market in Flushing, thereby infecting other people.
Does that seem like a very plausible “conspiracy theory”?
Throughout history, many global pandemics have begun in southern China. Even by Chinese standards, the southern Chinese are famous for eating a wide variety of exotic animals. Southern China has a dense population, often living in close proximity to animal life.
Yes, the NYT article also contains other “evidence”, all of which is equally weak. Those other points have been refuted here and here and here.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jun 4 2024 at 4:52pm
If it’s a topic you are really interested in highly suggest the debate that Scott Alexander reported on. The debate has been spread out over several years and some of the false claims have become accepted facts so it’s nice to have it played out in one place. It is a debate so the fact that the guy supporting zoonosis theory won could just mean he is a better debater but if you just judge on the facts he presents, he makes a strong case.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim?r=17uk7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Steve
Scott Sumner
Jun 4 2024 at 6:36pm
Yes, I saw that debate.
Mactoul
Jun 4 2024 at 10:12pm
Has the Covid-19 virus been found in wild?
Has the chain of intermediate animal hosts been identified for covid-19?
Why so much obfuscation on part of Fauci et al regarding collaboration with Wuhan lab and gain-of-function research?
Matthias
Jun 4 2024 at 11:07pm
See the debate linked by Steve in a sister comment.
Bob Loblaw
Jun 4 2024 at 11:45pm
Fauci has made a lot of mistakes such as on masking (opinions vary on what the mistake was but we all agree at some point he was wrong). I wouldn’t put much weight on his opinion on the virus’s origin, whatever that is.
Scott Sumner
Jun 5 2024 at 10:22am
The real question is why do people keep bringing up lab leak arguments that have been thoroughly refuted?
Jose Pablo
Jun 5 2024 at 7:10pm
I know that: because, someone, in many minds, these arguments fit perfectly well in the narrative that the evil Chinese are actively looking for the economic, moral, and physical destruction of the US.The Covid virus leak in Wuhan as irrefutable probe.
Never let the facts confuse you.
Jon Murphy
Jun 5 2024 at 8:49am
Going back to an earlier post by Kevin, your post shows why good theory is needed. Facts cannot speak for themselves. Facts simply exist. They help us determine how to interpret facts, which facts are relevant (and which are not), as well as make reasonable claims about probabilities of events.
To use your NYC example: if there was an outbreak of some disease in NYC, my theory and model of human behavior would lead me to conclude it is more likely that the formation of the disease, regardless of how novel it is, originated by random chance in relatively unsanitary conditions rather than in a relatively sanitary and controlled lab.
A lot of conspiracy theories revolve around having poor theories that do not adequately explain the facts (although, sometimes that appears to be intentional. The lack of explination is often then used by the conspiracy theorists as proof of the conspiracy).
All that said, one needs to distinguish between a theory and a conspiracy theory, especially with COVID origins. The “lab leak” thesis is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. It is an alternative. The leak could have been accidental; no conspiracy involved. A conspiracy theory needs a conspiracy. An accidental release from a lab is no more a conpsiracy than an accidental release from a wet market.
TGGP
Jun 5 2024 at 8:50am
You have said that pundits are mistaken on COVID origins relative to scientists. But you are not a scientist, whereas Alina Chan is, making you a pundit on this issue. Your blog post is not about economics, your area of expertise (and the unifying theme of this group blog). So by your own standards, why are you bothering?
Scott Sumner
Jun 6 2024 at 1:24pm
My post isn’t about Covid, it’s mostly about geography and logical reasoning. I think I know more about geography than most people, and thus am qualified to discuss geographic reasoning.
I did not discuss any highly technical virus issues, where scientists would know more than I do.
TGGP
Jun 7 2024 at 4:48pm
I don’t recall you mentioning geography as an area of expertise before, but that is a logical enough response.
TGGP
Jun 5 2024 at 8:52am
The hyperlink I attempted to add going to one of your older posts didn’t go through. This was the url: https://www.econlib.org/scientists-pundits-and-the-origin-of-covid-19/
David Seltzer
Jun 5 2024 at 11:58am
Scott: Nice! If I may, my observation is, you are trained to reason. It’s clearly apparent in your articles. I suspect logical reasoning is hard even for educated adults. I am reasonably well educated having taken degrees in applied mathematics and an MBA from Chicago. I still struggle with sound reasoning. I’m not excusing bad reasoning but pointing out instead, it takes considerable effort to improve. Your Blog leads in the right direction. Hopefully the NYT author will follow.
Jose Pablo
Jun 5 2024 at 4:11pm
The whole discussion is pretty irrelevant. After all, what if Covid originated in a lab leak in Wuhan?
Accidents happen. It could have happened in Galveston (Texas).
Many people would be inclined to believe that the leak was an accident, had it occurred in Texas, but the very same people will no doubt see it as a criminal conspiracy to kill lots of people sponsored by the Chinese government (starting, why not?, with lots of Chinese).
Chinese are evil, you know. Texans on the other hand are, you know, good people (for the most part).
Richard W Fulmer
Jun 6 2024 at 10:16am
The debate is hardly irrelevant. Knowing the source enables us to more effectively prevent a recurrence.
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2024 at 11:37pm
You are right. That should be why what normally follows the lab leak in Wuhan “theory” is a long and sensible list of recommendations to follow to prevent a similar accident in Galveston.
Eric
Jun 5 2024 at 8:04pm
While I’ve become convinced that zoonosis is the likely origin of Covid, I dislike the characterization of the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. The fact that the initial cases of Covid were in the same city as the leading Chinese lab working on coronaviruses is genuinely something of a coincidence.
Lizard Man
Jun 5 2024 at 9:21pm
The argument that got me to shift my view from favoring the lab leak hypothesis was to compare the coincidence that the pandemic started in Wuhan, and the coincidence that of all the places in Wuhan the first identified cluster was a wet market with lots of exotic animals kept in unsanitary conditions. Given that a wet market is the exact place that you would expect to be the first cluster, it seems likelier to have come from a wet market than a lab. If it was a lab leak it seems like a hell of coincidence that the first cluster was a wet market, and not somewhere else. And I don’t think that CPC is capable of actually covering up a lab leak. The Party may look very opaque and sinister (and hence not easy to understand), but it is among other things the world’s largest bureaucracy, and a government bureaucracy to boot, with all of the effectiveness and competence you would expect from that kind of bureaucracy.
Minor quibble, but aren’t Chengdu, Chongqing and Wuhan part of the Upper Yangtze region and separated from Southern China by mountains? I don’t think there are any rivers or canals that connect the Pearl River to the Yangtze (Jianghe).
Scott Sumner
Jun 6 2024 at 1:19pm
“Minor quibble, but aren’t Chengdu, Chongqing and Wuhan part of the Upper Yangtze region and separated from Southern China by mountains?”
Sure, but that’s equally true of Guangzhou, where SARS-1 originated. There are (low) mountains all over southern China.
Richard W Fulmer
Jun 6 2024 at 9:21am
One of the things that gave the lab leak theory credence was the immoderate pushback that the idea engendered long before any evidence was available. The suggestion that the virus could have come from a lab that had been studying similar viruses is hardly outrageous, but people who proposed it were routinely denounced in extreme terms. Apoorva Mandavilli, New York Times’ main COVID reporter, for instance, wrote that even talking about the possibility was racist:https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-times-covid-reporter-calls-discussion-of-lab-leak-theory-racist/
Scott Sumner
Jun 7 2024 at 3:18pm
I agree. Those criticisms were unwarranted.
Comments are closed.