Review: Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19 by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley ✎

I've just finished reading 'Viral', and found it jaw-dropping and completely gripping. Rather than a traditional non-fiction, it is written more like an engrossing detective story.

Unlike the 2003 SARS pandemic, we still don't have any conclusive evidence as to the pandemic's origin. It remains 'unknown'. This status quo is both ridiculous and unacceptable. 

When an airplane crashes, there is a determined effort to identify the cause of the catastrophe. The fact that a serious and full investigation into a pandemic that killed millions points to something deeply wrong.

This book takes the reader through the technical data, the virology theory, and the astounding history of random Twitter users - during global lockdowns - dredging and trawling the web for data concerning the covid-19 genome among published journals. It's clear from the book that without these 'internet sleuths' we may never have actually unearthed facts which the authorities were embarrassed into disclosing. Ultimately, this is a serious book which should merit broad government-level consideration, and scientific and political introspection.

Both writers grapple with both theories (natural origin and lab-leak) objectively and with impartiality. The book makes a very convincing case that covid-19 arose because of material held in research laboratories in Wuhan. However, this does not detract from the overall even-handedness of the book. 

Tracing covid

The story unfolds with the unearthing - via Twitter - of reported 'pneumonia' deaths in the Yunnan province in 2012. In some bat-infested mine, some miners had been struck down. So serious was this that it prompted repeated visits by scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). These reports were dug-up by the sleuths in doctoral dissertations published in China; but not available on international databases. Afterwards, repeated visits by external authorities to the mines (e.g. WHO, BBC etc.) were hampered by China with make-shift roadblocks etc, and 'minders' being ever-present. It seems likely that these caves may be the true origin of covid. (As with image below, from the book, it seems scientists may not have worn the full PPE protection to-and-from the mines; and so the virus could have hitched a ride on their clothes etc.) 

The book illustrates the inherent problem of dictatorships. The Chinese authorities appeared to have repeatedly and systematically destroyed evidence and data, online database were abruptly and inexplicably taken offline, obfuscatory explanations given, forbidding of investigations, and the punishment of leakers and informants.

Crucially, as the book explains, bats have tended to harbour an abundance of 'zoonotic viruses', via large virus pools in which mutations may be able to jump species. I found it incredible that the WIV - headed by Dr Shi - had already been focused on studying bat viruses for many years and had already finished sequencing the coronavirus genome some years prior. This was never shared with the international community - but only grudgingly disclosed after it was discovered online via the Twitter sleuths.

The Institute was already pursuing the so-called 'gain of function' research on covid-related viruses in order to 'get ahead' of the next pandemic by better understanding viral evolution and what makes it more potent (via the 'furin cleavage site'). What's fascinating is the scientists who were initially surprised by the 'atypical' adaptation of covid-19 from the outset against humans. 

The book is excellent at explaining the idiosyncrasies of covid. Generally speaking, in bats, the coronavirus family is a mild virus which targets their intestines; and yet - in humans - it is remarkably well-adapted and very contagious. In science, a virus involved in a spillover, is extremely unlikely to be highly infectious. This is because the binding receptor will be different between humans and the original animal host. As such, it requires mutations which explains why the first cases involve those in close proximity to animals. These early patients often catch but don't transmit the virus. The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of covid-19 is well adapted to the human AC2 receptor - but not as adapted to other species. Since covid-19 had few earlier mutations, the question is how the virus was immediately suited for human transmission. 

The source of the outbreak being the fish section of the Wuhan wet-market must be dismissed. Furthermore, the Chinese explanation of transmission via frozen food must also be disregarded. The authors point out how ridiculous this explanation is vis-a-vis basic virology (and how the WHO entertained it). The authors take us through the pangolin and civet cats as viral vessels; but the true mystery is the furin cleavage site. 

This aspect of covid-19 does not typically appear in bat coronaviruses. The authors explain what the RBD on the spike proteins are, and how they facilitate viral replication. The point is that it indicates some engineering; because the furin cleavage site is an added bit that doesn't appear in the other coronavirus genomes. Moreover - and this I found shocking - this genetic research was something that the WIV had already been conducting - i.e. inserting into other viruses genetic material etc, as part of its research. 

To my mind, these facts make the lab-leak theory the more probable cause of the pandemic. The authors also cite:

• Biosafety concerns at the lab.
• Chinese refusal to share data concerning the earliest human case in Nov 2019.
• The apparent kick-starting of vaccine developments in China before the outbreak was even declared.
• The ridiculous level of antagonism and non-cooperation by the Chinese authorities to investigate the origin.
• The failure to find an infected animals in the Wuhan wet-market.
• The fact that the world-leading institute (WIV) had nearly 200 bat coronavirus situated in its building in the middle of Wuhan itself. (Who, in their right mind, sticks a virology lab in the middle of a big metropolis?)
• The inherently risky nature of the research at WIV.
• The total refusal of the WIV to share its database, taking it offline in late 2019.
• Western virologists (including Sir Jeremy Farrar and Dr Anthony Fauci) had collaborated with the WIV to shut down debate in the West and label a lab leak a conspiracy theory despite privately expressing reservations against the natural origin theory.
• Peter Daszak (who had written in the Lancet against the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy; and has since become an embarrassment) had actually applied to the Pentagon, in collaboration with WIV, to do furin cleavage site experiments in bat coronaviruses. 

In the end

Ultimately, we are left with possibility that the US government may have unwittingly funded research into the very lab in Wuhan.

Another disturbing aspect of the pandemic is the widespread censorship of debate; and especially on Twitter and Facebook. I remember Twitter being a forum used by protesters during the Arab Spring; but nowadays it was part of the ossifying and stultifying response from science journals and agencies, most notably, the WHO. 

One of the biggest mysteries in virology of recent decades, was received by scientists and agencies who were anxious not to irritate the Chinese government. And, in some cases, content to collaborate with the Chinese government's obscurantism of the true origins of covid-19 (viz. Daszak).

As the authors point out, this is a brilliant template for how authoritarian regimes and dictatorships can best pivot the Western democracies into compliance. It also raises a serious question of how the Foreign Office is to approach future global crises. How should our universities and scientific journals handle Chinese funding? Why did so many liberals and scientists in the West found themselves secretly impressed by the Chinese authoritarian response to the pandemic. 

Ultimately, 'Viral' is a meticulously-researched book on the origins of covid-19 by intelligent and learned authors. It also raises a fascinating question as to how world governments - and, in particular, scientists - are to navigate China's autocratic closed political instincts which - one would have assumed - should not sit well with the scientific community. 

The feeling of a cover-up of a mistake has probably done much to amplify a sense of mistrust. I think it will take time to get over this pandemic, and I suspect that true catharsis can only prevail once we manage to get to the bottom of its origin. We also need a serious discussion on all scientific research conducted in the name of getting-ahead and which carry enormous risks.

Cherry Hinton Hall Park in Cambridge ✎

I've been to Cherry Hinton Hall Park a few times this year. It's a small suburban park which is a lovely place to perambulate 

It has a small lake with a variety of common birds and a pair of swans. Lots of woods and a meandering rivulet, mature trees, and always some cute squirrels.

The entrance

Feeding the ducks, perhaps too much.

So beautiful, peaceful, reposeful ... Some lovely spots for some nature photography. I hope to take a few more photos before returning to London.

Hedge bindweed.

Heading for one of the exits ...

Feels like a John Constable painting; the unruffled tranquility and calmness. The reflection of the branches is so beautiful.

And heading to the shops for groceries.

Hopefully, I'll take photos of the swans next time.

Review: On Liberty by John Stuart Mill ✎

I've recently finished reading 'On Liberty' by Mill. Every few years I find myself re-reading this book. I profoundly agree with Mill, and spend most of the reading experience either nodding my head in agreement or shaking at some irritation alongside Mill. 

Originally published in 1859, it is an perceptive analysis of the human condition with regards to our thought-process and the way we treat others who stand in opposition to the consensus.

When I first read 'On Liberty', I remember finding the prose rather turgid - if not verbose; but I've now come to really enjoy his literary style. Mill has a lovely literary style - which makes me feel he's speaking and narrating. His otherwise discursive narrative obscures the concision with which his forceful philosophical points are couched. Indeed, so much so, that the book is immensely quotable. This is not a treatise, instead it takes the form of an extended essay and relates to his general utilitarianism ideology. I think its the brevity of 'On Liberty' which imbues it with its enduring aphoristic quality.

Core arguments

Mill argues that people are accustomed to believe that their "feelings are better than reasons" and that tolerance only operates as a prisoner's dilemma type of situation. So natural to humankind is intolerance that its only when the cost of philosophical or political quarrels becomes costly, that a truce of-sorts prevails: "the duty of toleration is admitted with tacit reserves". 

The preservation of liberty entails limits on government action. But, as I write this, I feel some despondency. Our world is radically different to Mill's account - most conspicuously during covid-19. So much so, that reading Mill feels, to me, rather quaint. Today, government is viewed - not with any suspicion - but with an air of an expectation. The expectation of intervening in almost every issue and to 'deal'  with every 'crisis'. Governments are expected to furnish solutions to all aspect of life - even the insoluble one. At least Mill's era involved some inherent realisation as to the limits of government. Nevertheless, Mill writes that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". This outlines his classic harm principle: "his own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" to exercise power over him.  But, the concept of what amounts to harm, more often than not, is precisely a person's own good (with the difference that today, it is repackaged as the well-being of others).

Nevertheless, as a starting proposition, he argues that people should be able to determine their own lives as it suits their characters. He presents four classic arguments.

1. Firstly, as a result of own non-infallibility, I have no more rational weight to impede the expression of opinions contrary to my own – than they would have to impede my own opinion. That is true of homosexuality, racism, prostitution, transgenderism etc. as being acceptable. As a matter of first principles, a person has no more rational weight for finding it acceptable than someone else holding the contrary. It is simply a point of view which is often held very strongly to such an extent that disagreement is automatically deemed as being 'wrong'. Mill argues that our infallibility ought to make us rein in the stifling of opinions that do not mirror our own - often the regnant orthodoxy. In so doing, Mill argues that humanity would be hurting itself. He says: "they have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging". He argues eloquently that depriving a counter-position involves humanity losing "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth".

2. Secondly, we have a duty to form our own opinions on subjects in life. To that extent, it is cowardice to withdraw and recoil from meaningfully acting on our earnest opinions. "People, in less enlightened times, have persecuted opinions now believed to be true", and it makes all the difference between assuming the truth for lack of refutation and not permitting its refutation. 

In my view, Mill touches on a deeply held insecurity often lurking beneath the surface vis-a-vis the censorious; namely, their anxiety about being challenged. Mill argues that a confident opinion ought to involve a "standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded".

Mill rebukes the perceived impiety that may surround some given opinion; i.e. by "preventing the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility". He cites Socrates and the putative impiety of challenging the gods of the state and as the 'corrupter of the youth'. He cites Calvary, and the Sanhedrin putting Christ to death in genuine outrage at his impiety. The greatest harm, he says, is the reasoning that is cowed for fear of heresy. Truth gains more by people who earnestly think for themselves than those who "suffer themselves to think". An atmosphere of mental slavery. Without challenge, opinions morph into a "dead dogma, not a living truth". Its comprehension and rationality will wither, and any heartfelt and earnest conviction becomes a luxury. Elsewhere he argues that an aspect of individuality is originality, otherwise "human life would becomes a stagnant pool". As such, he reminds society that we should encourage people who think differently.

My own university boasts a world renowned status; and yet, last year, Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce were abused and attempts were made to silence them and prevent fellow students from hearing their opinions. Mill's stagnancy seems fitting.

3. Thirdly, quoting Cicero, "he who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that". By throwing ourselves into the mental position of those who think differently, we may overlook refining the truth. Referring to the Socratic method, he makes clear an obvious point which is that any prevailing orthodoxy is rarely the whole truth. It is via the collision of adverse opinions on which truth is ultimately furnished. He says quite beautifully:

If there are any persons who contest a received opinion ... let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is some one to do for us what we otherwise ought.

This line is almost utopian. Have we ever lived in a world in which opinions are vigorously and honestly contested? Our opinions are tribal and held for the sake of vanity or peer-pressure. I really don't think we are a species that can think for itself. As much as I admire and love Mill's book, I increasingly feel that our culture would mock these points and, to that extent, it feels irrelevant to our world. There feels like an ever concentrated set of social and cultural orthodoxies; and against which, diversity and tolerance are regarded with suspicion and hostility. 

4. Finally, Mill cautions us from "stigmatising those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men". Mill argues that this argument is one-sided; i.e. the side with the comforting majority. The minority cannot attack the prevailing consensus as immoral or wicked etc. Similar to the ad hominem, Mill urges readers to restrain vituperation and such offensive attacks. On the other side, he cautions the minority position.

He argues that the expression of ideas is not without consequence or cost. By insulting a man's mother, I cannot expect or demand no consequences. A person who articulates an unorthodox or heretical view must be mindful of the way they comport themselves. They cannot demand no cost.

The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.

Conclusion

There are some interesting tangential points. Mill seems to adopt a Lockian conceptions of rights which is qualified vis-a-vis children (up to the legal age). Liberty is defined negatively by 'failing to help his brother'. I am quite pleased to see Mill discounted the fanciful notion of the 'social contract' and maintained some, admittedly vague, conception of mutual responsibility between individuals and the community. These sentiments reflect an approach to liberty that deserves its own post. Moreover, there was a fascinating remonstration against Christian precepts which I quite enjoyed and may need to be fleshed out and analysed in more detail in a future post.

Ultimately, this is an excellent work which distills the need to acknowledge the flourishing of individual dignity through the liberty of the individual.

Turner at Tate Britain – Turner’s Seascapes – Part 3 ✎

Edit: This is a continuation of my chronicling the Turner gallery at the Tate Britain.

• Part 1 - Turner’s Europe
• Part 2 - Turner’s Britain
• Part 4 - Turner’s Exhibitions

✲✲✲

These paintings by Turner are part of his unfinished works - which were discovered after his death - and concern his enduring fascination with the seas’s dazzling translucency, and its transient and dissolving movement. 

Norham Castle, Sunrise by J.M.W. Turner (1845)

This masterpiece of Norham Castle is fascinating and engrossing, and so very beautiful. I had it on my wall opposite my table while studying at Cambridge. I think it puts a smile on my face.

This feels like an early morning walk; when the misty river is illuminated by the radiant morning sunlight. A river which has become shallow enough for cows to stand in. The contrast between the yellow and blue highlights the castle and the rising sun.

Turner’s water has a mystic deep quality to it. The charming atmosphere - through the blazing refulgence of sunshine - seems to bounce of the surface of the landscape and subsume the canvass. Turner’s brushwork creates an evanescent ethereality to the water. As though, if I were to reach into the painting, it would turn into a misty foggy moistness. I love how the cow bears a reflection in the water which gives the painting a feeling of tranquil calm.

I see why people regard Turner as having laid down the foundation for impressionism and abstraction.

✲✲✲

Shipping at the mouth of the Thames by J.M.W. Turner (1806-7)

Shipping boats off the Thames Estuary.

A gentle breeze this time, and the direction and position of the shipping boats as they navigate the choppy waters looks quite clever. It does feel consistent with the bouncing seas. The sky looks unfinished; but it also looks like a storm if coming and will soon envelope the whole sky.

Again, I think this is delightful.

✲✲✲

A ship aground, Yarmouth by J.M.W. Turner (1827-8)

A painting intended for the Earl of Egremont.

This painting is really enchanting. I love the way Turner’s waves have an amazing curved shape that strectches back into the distance. The abandoned ship is positioned in such a way as to look as though it ran aground on rocks.

The stress and hazard of the disturbed vessel is counterposed with a very calm and placid sea. The sun is setting and the clouds seem to be coming over the horizon. What’s surprising is that this painting is apparently incomplete. I don’t think it needs much more.

✲✲✲

Breakers on a flat beach by J.M.W. Turner (1835-40)

According to the Tate, Turner may have made this painting in Margate. He may have travelled from London via steamboat.

I love the dark swirling pool of blackness at the bottom; and I like the way the two pillars of billowing darkness are rising. It feels like the edge of a forest at the banks of some river. I also like the patches of blue skyline at the top that are irradiated by Turner’s sunshine.  It’s a shame this wasn’t completed. There’s a hint of some appendages at the bottom-right corner?

✲✲✲

A wreck, with fishing boats by J.M.W. Turner (1840-5)

The skyline is probably incomplete. But somehow it seems to work quite well.

The water seem to have a similar  texture and movements to the sky. You can just make out two people on their boat. It’s quite pretty.

✲✲✲

East Cowes Castle, Regatta Starting for Their Moorings No. 3 by J.M.W. Turner (1827)

According to the Tate, this painting probably depicts a race. 

The tranquil water and irradiant sunshine floods the painting to create an aureate autumnal feel.

✲✲✲

Yacht Approaching the Coast by J.M.W. Turner (1840-5)

An unfinished painting. 

Feels like a journey through life, the pulsating etherality of the sunshine, has a dazzling effect.

Once again, I find this mesmerising. 

Review: The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells ✎

I really enjoyed reading this classic.

What is incredible is how someone from Victorian England could have contrived such a gripping modern sci-fi. The prodigious story is knotted together through Wells' inspiration, ingenuity and the intensity of his plot. Most of the novel depicts the narrator's anxiety to locate his missing wife, against whom he had been unintentionally separated at the outset. This makes for a pleasing ending. Otherwise, from the unnerving horror of the martians to the depths of human despair; I felt Wells really takes us on wild ride (his favorite word in the novel being 'tumultuous').

My first exposure to The War of the Worlds is the Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise film which I thought was a terrific film. What is particularly striking is just how faithful that blockbuster was to Well's masterpiece.

Written in the style of a narrated diary, I was drawn to his plight, alienation and weariness. Wells gives us some deep reflections on the broader plight of mankind. For example, I really enjoyed the subtle intuition that the protagonist says to a clergyman - who having survived the initial annihilation - who starts beseeches 'what sins have we done?'. The response:

"You are scared out of your wits! What good is religion if it collapses under calamity? Think of what earthquakes and floods, wars and volcanoes, have done before to men! Did you think God had exempted Weybridge? He is not an insurance agent."

Haha. Love it. One of the most misconceived aspects of the monotheistic religions is the latent assumption that the natural world - from weather conditions to tectonic activity - occurs specifically for and about us, as its subject. But, stepping back, and looking at the natural world and physical laws that govern it; one gets a radically different perspective. Instead, death and suffering is the norm; and a part of everything. Life is a constant struggle of survival, and even stars die. I think Wells taps into a serious misunderstanding people have about death and our perception of ourselves in the world. He is fond of evoking the image of hapless bees and ants being massacred, or rabbits facing a bulldozer, or a rat scurrying. What is the point? I think Well's wants us to pity those suffering who are different from us:

I, who had talked with God, crept out of the house like a rat leaving its hiding place ... Perhaps they also prayed confidently to God. Surely, if we have learned nothing else, this war has taught us pity—pity for those witless souls that suffer our dominion.

Then, I was struck by the convulsions in the story to the moral and psychological effect that the nightmare bears on the individual as well as the masses. The fleeing throngs of people is starkly depicted with an almost Biblical quality. London's population is fleeing northwards along cramped narrow roads amidst an eclectic miscellany of social classes, unanimous in fear, torment & hunger.

There's a cheerless incident involving a desperate man - in the midst of a marching throng - lunging to retrieve a heap of coins he had dropped. He narrowly avoids being crushed under a horse's hoof; only to hear a scream as the wheel passed over the poor creature's back. Thus, back-broken, he is then positioned at the side of the road still clutching his coins. In the film, there is a similar scene involving gunshots for the sake of a car.

Then, there are also the imaginative and inventive analytical details of clinical horror which are fascinating. For instance, incandescent heat-rays, poisonous black smoke, or that the martians are said to inject their 'food' into the blood streams (circumventing a digestive system). Similarly, the martian's reproduction process is some mitosis-like splitting into twos. Then, there is the suggestion that natural selection favoured a steady diminution of the martians nose, teeth, ears etc in favour of the brain. Immediately afterwards, the protagonist even wonders if "the Martians may be descended from beings not unlike ourselves". 

It's also interesting that the martians are eventually slain by the humble Earthly bacteria - and not some machinery or science, human intelligence or strength, or even divine providence. Even in the demise of our foe, humankind is rendered impotent and useless. I find that ending resonates with me. I think it speaks to the reckoning that chance and randomness ultimately bears on our continued existence in the solar system. The harsh reality that we are not in control.