Visually, it would appear as all other coronaviruses.
If the sequencers (Illumina, etc) use the Wuhan reference genome, then they are being very trustworthy of China. A digital mock up could be orchestrated to favor common "attachment" reads (where only the first several nucleotides are read) to statistically increase the chance of false positives.
If the sequencers are using the Wuhan negative control, then that is also very trusting as it would eliminate the sequencer from being able to catch whether or not the patient's sample was also infected with the flu... or another coronavirus.
All antibody and antigen tests rely on the presence of the S spike protein which is present in all human affecting coronaviruses, including the ones that cause 20% of common colds.
The first PCR tests, up until April 2020, were all SARS COV tests as the SARS COV 2 PCR tests had not yet been invented. I believe ORF1 on all betacoronaviruses are similar enough that PCR tests cannot differentiate and it states as much on the packaging and includes warnings about interference from other viruses, as well.
The finer points of how the sequencers work make it hard for the layman to understand but a few youtube videos on how to use the machines and software should help clear some of it up.
Point being, the computer does all the work using the software provided by...? On an operating system, provided by...? Their partnerships with Microsoft.
But... say we just controlled the reference genome and the negative control list. We might be able to trick anyone.
I trust the science, to be clear, when done right. However, there are many, many opportunities to insert bias into the sequencing of a genome and it starts with having too little data and filling in the blanks using the references. Like Jurassic Park did with frog DNA to fill in Dino DNA blanks.
Something to consider, anyways.
If the sequencers (Illumina, etc) use the Wuhan reference genome, then they are being very trustworthy of China. A digital mock up could be orchestrated to favor common "attachment" reads (where only the first several nucleotides are read) to statistically increase the chance of false positives.
I don’t know the nitty gritty details of this shit. It seems like fucking insane that no one, no Russians, no Indians, no Muzzies or some rogue european researcher would try to verify the genome on his own.
I cant find it now but there was some doc that showed all the sequences that the various major pcr assays were relying on. I believe the CDC had recommendations for which regions to test based on where the most diversity exists among betacoronaviruses— I think it was the N-protein. I think most of the pcrs are now using that section as one of the sequences. They certainly were not all using the spike and the orf1. I dont think any of them are using the spike protein.
The finer points of how the sequencers work make it hard for the layman to understand but a few youtube videos on how to use the machines and software should help clear some of it up.
Yay I can’t wait. This is not my area and an I find it tedious to try to grasp a bunch of shit when I don’t have a lot of foundational knowlege to work from. But Im getting tired of hearing this same fucking disinformation story and not having the heavy artillery to knock it down.
I get what you are saying though about reliance on software that infers a lot of data. I just don’t know how likely it would be for everyone to be relying on unconfirmed shit for a year and a half without trying to replicate the results.
Well you certainly seem to have done your homework eh?
I have digitally mocked up what I feel to be convincing faked SARS COV 2 strains for upload. I have used a variety of techniques to produce many faked strains and... once enough time has passed so that I can reliably say, "NOBODY IS CHECKING FOR FAKES!!!"
So, stay tuned.
You have piqued my interest. Let me know if you make any posts about this.
(post is archived)