Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

minervanett.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 494 posts

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#181

Post by [deleted] »

xster wrote: post #93
mjirv wrote: post #79

Epidemiologist Ellie Murray said it better than I could, so I’ll just quote her: “Yes, the chance of a virus like SARS-CoV-2 suddenly arising is fairly low. That’s why we have so few pandemics!! But conditional on being in a pandemic the chance that the virus that arises to cause it is like SARS-CoV-2 is super high!! There’s no conspiracy, just statistics”[0] That said, the fact that the outbreak started so close to…

> certainly suggestive that it escaped from the lab, though that doesn’t mean it was necessarily “man made.” https://www.iesdouyin.com/share/video/6823589225980644623 Dr Fauci said it better than I could, so I'll just quote him: "hahahaha"

[deleted]

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#182

Post by chris_wot »

noxer wrote: post #98
jimbob45 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick. Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.

What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that t…

They are allowed. They just aren’t supported because their work is absurd, easily disprovable and so obviously wrong it’s not worth considering.

They are free to self publish, but no one should be forced to publish their work.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#183

Post by boomboomsubban »

waspleg wrote: post #163
sandworm101 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and this is a really crazy theory, they were studying it in China because it was a local virus that they were worried might one day infect humans. Maybe they were studying which changes would make it most dangerous because they wanted to be ready if those changes happened naturally. Honest hard work can sometimes look like evil plans, and not every coincidence is the result of conspiracy.

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, forced organ harvesting, and military occupation of free countries like Hong Kong the benefit of the doubt on biological weapons research gone awry?

Even taking the worst possible view of the Chinese government, they have strong economic reasons to have been preparing for a new SARS type epidemic over the past twenty years. They don't need the benefit of the doubt.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#185

Post by jkhdigital »

chris_wot wrote: post #175
jkhdigital wrote: post #127

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the argument in this paper: 1. SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique and unusual genetic features, when compared to close relatives, many of which explain its high virulence and infectivity among humans. 2. A series of research papers published by a group of virologists, dating back a little over a decade, demonstrate (1) a progressively increasing understanding of viral features which m…

That’s a heck of a lot of steps to get to that conclusion. There is a massive amount of misinformation around COVID-19. Check out this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_... All the things that the article posits have been looked into and the conclusion from most of the scientific community is that it is extraordinarily unlikely that this came from a lab in Wuhan.

> the conclusion from most of the scientific community

Who is this "scientific community" that you speak of, anyway? Modern science is conducted through published research papers. I read papers and decide for myself which arguments to believe. Do I understand everything? No, of course not, but I learn a helluva lot more than if I trust what a secondary source tells me about scientific research and leave it at that. You only have to read a few papers to realize that what is reported in the media is often radically different than what the authors actually claim in a paper.

But really, this is tackled head-on in the paper itself. There is basically one peer-reviewed paper that argues against the man-made theory, and the authors point out flaws in that paper. I also read it an did not come away thinking that they had made a particularly convincing argument. I encourage you to do the same; it's a very approachable paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

They even state that "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another." In other words, the jury is out, and the prosecution has brought more evidence. Time to reevaluate.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#186

Post by vmlinuz »

ss7pro wrote: post #172
waspleg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, forced organ harvesting, and military occupation of free countries like Hong Kong the benefit of the doubt on biological weapons research gone awry?

C'mon Hong Kong belongs to China and always was. It was just leased to UK and this lease had ended in last century. China just wanted to reap benefits of Being Kong economy this is why they given them such a huge autonomy . They can change it anytime as this is their property. If someone would follow your logic Hawai is also US occupied country ...

So I'm not going to get into an argument, just make three basic points to reply here:

Hong Kong did not always belong to China, and was not leased to the UK - part of Hong Kong's area (the New Territories) was leased, but Kowloon and Hong Kong island were ceded in perpetuity.

China signed an international treaty with the UK regarding the handover of Hong Kong, a treaty which comes with certain rights and responsibilities. Sure, there's no real way to actually enforce such a treaty, but you can't really complain if other countries react to the breaking of a treaty with punitive measures, and don't trust the treaty-breaker not to break other treaties in future.

How about asking the people of Hong Kong what they want? There's about 7.5 million of us here, with a fairly unique history and culture, so maybe just being subsumed into another country wouldn't be the choice of the population?

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#187

Post by lifeformed »

noxer wrote: post #98
jimbob45 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick. Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.

What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that t…

People are allowed to do that research, and it has been done before, and the conclusion was that no significant differences were found.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#188

Post by [deleted] »

ss7pro wrote: post #172
waspleg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, forced organ harvesting, and military occupation of free countries like Hong Kong the benefit of the doubt on biological weapons research gone awry?

C'mon Hong Kong belongs to China and always was. It was just leased to UK and this lease had ended in last century. China just wanted to reap benefits of Being Kong economy this is why they given them such a huge autonomy . They can change it anytime as this is their property. If someone would follow your logic Hawai is also US occupied country ...

[deleted]

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#189

Post by jkhdigital »

anoncareer0212 wrote: post #174
dahfizz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it also seems reasonable that features of viruses researchers study because of their likelihood to increase human transmission would show up in a naturally occurring virus with a lot of human transmission. You are letting language get in the way here. Researchers at Wuhan weren't studying "features" of viruses, they were studying what happens exactly when you insert X amino acid at Y location and how that…

The line of thinking is seductive, believe me, but that's the thing about circumstantial evidence - it is very likely that there is a coronavirus infectivity research station next to a massive source of bat coronaviruses, that was in fact why the lab was there!

But do you see the qualitative difference between "pandemic virus appears in general region where these kinds of viruses are common" and "pandemic virus appears down the street from a viral research lab"?

You're also just making a straight up false claim anyway, since most of the virus samples discussed in their research come from distant regions (500+ miles away).

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#190

Post by mikedilger »

MiroF wrote: post #173
pmayrgundter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good summary, thanks! Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant. It was first laid out in a widely disseminated paper in The Lancet [1, see Figure 1B], but since then retrospective wastewater analyses from Italy[2], Spain[3], Brazil and others[4] have found it was circulating much earlier. "The Italian National Institute of Health lo…

> Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant Perhaps in your mind, but this is not at all a fair representation of the general scientific consensus - most still hold the weight of the evidence leans towards a November '19 origin in Wuhan

How did you determine the general scientific consensus?
Post reply on HN