User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Define Consensus

Is there a scientific consensus that COVID-19 is the result of a Zoonosis? The answer to that question depends on your definition of "consensus".

I went to dictionary.com and saw the following two definitions:

1. majority of opinion
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Under those definitions, the answer as of today (June 17, 2021) is a resounding "no".

But for purposes of determining the results of Wikipedia discussions, Wikipedia uses a curious definition of "consensus" in which the best sources are academic sources. Therefore, for purposes of determining the results of Wikipedia discussions, one has to refer to what has been published in academic journals about whether or not COVID-19 is the result of a zoonosis. In that case, the answer is a resounding "yes". The following is shamelessly stolen from WP:NOLABLEAK. If one limits oneself to peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, it remains valid:

Peer reviewed publications agree that COVID-19 is a zoonosis

In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020) Immunity, May 19, 2020 In their commentary they wrote “there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin” and that “some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported”. However, authors have not cited any authenticated source or literature that has claimed the “laboratory engineering”. Le infezioni in medicina (Italian), September 1, 2020 Another unconfirmed hypothesis that has received mixed response is the possibility of the virus originating in Wuhan’s Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, located just 300 yards away from Wuhan’s animal market or the Wuhan Institute of Virology located eight miles away from the animal market. Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 1, 2021 Our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that will require more studies and more specific targeted research. Similarly and connected to this hypothesis is also the one including the possibility of transmission through the trade of frozen cold-chain products. There we are making the difference between the introduction of the virus into the human population and the possibility of the circulation of the virus through long-distance and through different settings or the introduction of the virus into a particular setting like a market for example. Then the hypothesis of a direct spill-over from an original animal source into the human population is also a possible pathway and is also generating recommendation for future studies. However, the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain introduction of the virus into the human population and therefore is not a hypothesis that will imply to suggest future studies into our work to support our future work into the understanding of the origin of the virus. World Health Organization, February 9, 2021 Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. The complete genome of SARS‐CoV‐2 is deposited in the public database shortly after the outbreaks based on advanced next generation sequencing technologies. There is also no record of laboratory accidents at the WIV, and the former SARS‐CoV accident did not occur at the WIV. Additionally, a recent study further supported the natural origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 from viruses found in Rhinolophus sp. However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Reviews in Medical Virology, February 14, 2021 Another hypothesis is the accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses. Accidents happen and have already been reported during the SARS epidemic in Taiwan, Singapore and China (Webster, 2004; WHO, 2004). This is not limited to SARS-CoV (Heymann et al., 2004). When it happened in Beijing in 2004, the information was immediately released and an investigation involving both WHO and Chinese governmental agencies was conducted, patients were identified and treated (WHO, 2004). There is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2. Because of the incubation period of COVID-19, the weak symptoms, the significant rate of asymptomatic patients and the low virulence (with an estimated fatality rate of 3.26%, but more likely around 1% to 2% which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV with 9.6%), an accident could have easily remained unnoticed. But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020). One must remember that SARS-CoV-2 was never found in the wild and that RaTG13 does not exist as real virus but instead only as a sequence in a computer (Zhou et al., 2020a; Ge et al., 2016). It is a virtual virus which thus cannot leak from a laboratory. This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team (Dyer, 2021). Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, March 18, 2021

So for purposes of determining the results of Wikipedia discussions, there is a scientific consensus that COVID-19 is the result of a zoonosis.

But what about article space? Suppose one wants to write in an article that "there is a scientific consensus that COVID-19 is the result of a zoonosis". Should the word "consensus" in that sentence refer to a Wikipedia-consensus or a dictionary.com-consensus? I would think it refers to a dictionary.com-consensus, but I could be wrong.