Was going to fact check the science in the Sky News report on the origins of the coronavirus. But there's not a lot of science here. It's all speculation and politicking.

It only used two preprint papers, one from @Ayjchan and one from Nikolai Petrovsky, to back its theories.

The second study, from Petrovsky's group, used computer modelling to see how well the virus binds to cells inc. bat and human. Sky says it shows it binds more strongly to human cells than bat cells.

But you can't come to those conclusions with the modelling used.

Sky, of course, does not explain the intricate details of the preprint or how data was collected. It *is* highly technical, as Sharri Markson says at the start of this segment (called "secret science")... but the job of a journalist is to explain it.

Of course, this is not a science report, it's a Sky News report. Rather than examine the science, it does what good conspiracy theories do: Finds some truths to cling to, speaks around the topic as best it can and leaves a ton of grey area.

It uses @Ayjchan's preprint only to bring up the idea the Huanan Seafood Market samples showed the virus was likely brought into the market, rather than started there. It uses that to try and bolster its lab leak leaning...

...but if you read the preprint -- or talk to the scientists who wrote it -- its really a warning: We lack evidence to rule out *ANY* potential starting point for the coronavirus, and we need to take precautions against each to prevent re-emergence.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf

If this report is about COVIDs origins, it should be *about* searching for the origins of the coronavirus. Instead... it just puts the blame on China from the beginning (it's called "What is China hiding?" jfc) without even mentioning how a virus might naturally emerge.

Anyway, I probably won't watch Sky News ever again. Thanks to Dad's foxtel account for the help.