Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fish_whisperer t1_ir01ofh wrote

Everyone take a deep breath. Articles like this are meant to notify the scientific community that surveillance and research needs to be directed towards these viruses, which will hopefully lead to effective future treatments. It isn’t meant to scare the general public.

743

ALLoftheFancyPants t1_ir15emv wrote

There’s so many zoonotic diseases that could spillover all the time and in increasing likelihood with habitat loss driving increased interaction between animals and humans. That’s like the OG source for the majority of infectious diseases, throughout history. Its definitely scary and should be taken seriously in making policy choices (ie preserve habitats, monitor populations most at risk, etc) but panic helps no one.

121

TheGreat_War_Machine t1_ir3nhyg wrote

>That’s like the OG source for the majority of infectious diseases, throughout history.

Most of the major plagues in history came from livestock.

10

[deleted] t1_ir291zy wrote

[removed]

−22

ALLoftheFancyPants t1_ir2omht wrote

I’m not sure how or why you jumped from “increased interaction” to bestiality. Look at Lyme disease, it’s increasing in frequency due to increased habitat (aka deforestation) for ticks in addition more people living in or right near that same habitat. There’s no sex, just existing in the same space, for the overwhelming majority of zoonotic diseases.

8

Angry_Millenial26 t1_ir2qxqo wrote

No one is having sex with monkeys… HIV came from people eating monkeys that had the disease

2

Goatmanish t1_ir2u44z wrote

You're skipping a step there. It likely came from someone gathering bushmeat (apes in this case) who was bitten or cut while hunting or butchering the infected ape. It's not from eating them.

3

[deleted] t1_ir03nxv wrote

[removed]

57

[deleted] t1_ir0isyd wrote

[removed]

29

Leemour t1_ir0u36i wrote

I remember watching an interview with a virologist and he said that they often go to wild forests, jungles and other uninhabited areas where they are most likely to find new viral mutations. They collect, catalog and study these viruses, so if they spill over to human populations the search for a vaccine/cure would be fast.

IIRC Corona viruses were cataloged decades ago, before COVID, they just had to change some things for higher efficacy and the mRNA technology just made vaccines cheaper to manufacture and we were able to dispense a lot very quickly.

50

Goatmanish t1_ir2uhze wrote

Human infecting coronaviruses have been known since the 60s, the thing is they mostly cause the common cold (along with literally hundreds of other viruses) so they weren't a cause for concern until SARS.

13

Strazdas1 t1_ir4hxyy wrote

And SARS burned out so fast noone actually developed countermeasures. Even Canada that was more effected and had some medical stocpiles done by law have stopped that after 5 years and therefore wasnt prepared for SARS2.

3

Strazdas1 t1_ir4hvo7 wrote

Coranaviruses is not a new grouup of viruses, there were many other cornaviruses and some even had breakouts (though nothing on that scale). Most of them have evolved to low-to-none symptoms which is why we expected this virus to do the same.

2

[deleted] t1_ir10usb wrote

[removed]

−13

giuliomagnifico OP t1_ir073mz wrote

> It isn’t meant to scare the general public.

And mice, on which the researchers will test new vaccines and drugs.

22

[deleted] t1_ir0esvc wrote

[removed]

6

bluesun_geo t1_ir1n0k7 wrote

Hopefully Ebola-like includes wiping out the infected so fast it can’t really get to a pandemic level.

8

Strazdas1 t1_ir4hzz0 wrote

If the vector is the same all you have to do not to get infected is not follow outdated funeral practices where you kiss the wounds of the dead relative.

4

PolyDipsoManiac t1_ir3sk4b wrote

Frankly it should scare the general public. Another one even more poised for spillover into mammalian transmission is highly pathogenic avian influenza.

6

[deleted] t1_ir46hhz wrote

[deleted]

1

fish_whisperer t1_ir4rmni wrote

The researchers published their paper in an academic journal, which is generally only read by other researchers, and is likely so complicated that the average citizen wouldn’t understand it even if they did read it. The linked article is a press release written up by the university—maybe their PR, Communications, or Research department. It’s designed to generate interest in the university.

2

[deleted] t1_ir0fs1v wrote

[removed]

−11

fish_whisperer t1_ir0g3m2 wrote

Honestly? Close to zero. That’s not at all how academic research works. People don’t go to school for decades to become experts in a field and capable of doing this kind of research just to follow social media trends.

43

[deleted] t1_ir11a78 wrote

[removed]

−3

[deleted] t1_ir11ejo wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_ir11izu wrote

[removed]

−4

[deleted] t1_ir11zah wrote

[removed]

3

estoka t1_ir16uzk wrote

So the mantra that we've been hearing for the last decade of publish or perish, no longer seems to be applicable? Research is not dictated by popular interests and a need to funding? Interesting.

−8

AppealDouble t1_ir1hzh2 wrote

I think you’ll find that articles like these are simply more likely to make headlines now that the world has experienced 2 international human epidemics in 2 years and the fact that this has been a terrible year for avian flu.

15

HambdenRose t1_ir1k9av wrote

They are publishing but not in the most publicly prominent places. They are publishing in journals that other scientists with similar interests will be reviewing and reading. Most journal articles don't catch the attention of the public.

9

hesperidium-rex t1_ir1yhfx wrote

"Publish" means in scientific journals, not on websites. And the mechanisms for funding are incredibly complicated. Research needs to be funded, but what kinds of research is prioritized often depends on the priorities of whoever is funding it - which is rarely the general public. On top of that, many funds are earmarked specifically for certain kinds of research, any many projects are long-lasting endeavours whose funding carries over years or decades.

So putting out an article that makes the public panic is far from sufficient to get a research grant. To do that, you have to convince the funding agency that you have a project that addresses a specific need of theirs, and you're capable of pulling it off.

7

MukdenMan t1_ir1i4f7 wrote

Researchers don’t do that. People who write articles pick up on actual research and then spin it for an article (although obviously there are good articles written for the general public too).

8

estoka t1_ir1iskc wrote

Really? I didn't think it was a stretch after everything this woman has found:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

Or this individual :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-31/on-the-trail-of-dodgy-academic-research/100788052

Or most of psychology:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te

Edit: This is one of my current favorites:

https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

−6

MukdenMan t1_ir1jmv0 wrote

You didn’t ask if there is misconduct in research (obviously there is). You asked if people are pumping out papers “like this” (implying the paper in the link above is clickbait) because it is good for publicity. The publicity comes from people who write articles for popular media.

In this case, this is just being publicized by a university because it is good for their reputation. CU is not engaged in “clickbait.”

“The authors stress that another pandemic is not imminent, and the public need not be alarmed.” At best you could say that the headline could cause people to draw the wrong conclusions, but the article and the paper it is discussing aren’t an issue.

11

estoka t1_ir1v7as wrote

What I'm saying, by referencing academic misconduct, is that people are willing to go to extreme lengths in order to remain relevant and employed. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that research budgets would be motivated by public interest? Especially if said research is based on government funding. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

−1