Live data from Hacker News

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

minervanett.no

481–490 of 494 posts

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

#481
post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I said "allowed" for a reason. You can of course research whatever but if you publish something either none cares because you are a nobody or you get canceled if it doesn't support the "current truth". People have better things to do than destroying their reputation for zero reward. The rest is just a lie. There are plenty known significant differences especially difference in risk for diseases that are linked to gen…

Of course there are health differences, I meant there aren't intelligence differences.

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

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please explain more clearly?

Sure, what's your degree of bio background?

What do you think about this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug

Are these people also conspiracy theorists?

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

#483
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…

> the chance that the virus that arises to cause it is like SARS-CoV-2 is super high This statement obscures and oversimplifies, which is unfortunately what scientists sometimes do when speaking to the public because they assume people won't understand otherwise. When she says "like SARS-CoV-2" she is not speaking about the physical structure of the virus, she is really just referring to general qualities that a viru…

> frequent and unpredictable mutation

This isn't actually one of the qualities of SARS-CoV-2. Like other coronaviruses, it possesses a proofreading mechanism for its RNA code which drastically lowers its mutation rate compared to something like influenza.

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says an expert is an expert? Catholic priests are all experts in catholicism. They write papers about Catholicism, all peer reviewed by other experts in catholicism. Most agree the Pope is infallible. Groupthink is still Groupthink and belief is still belief. Hence why we have debacles like the lipid hypothesis.

It is very easy to find out whether someone is an expert, as long as you really want to and don't just fool around. For example, an expert on viral diseases will have a long track record of publications in highly acclaimed journals for the past 30 years or longer. For the purpose of validation or expert testimony, there is no need to consider everyone who has a PhD and got tenure an expert. It is reasonable to set th…

It's not easy at all.

By your measure, Professor Ferguson at ICL is an expert in predicting diseases. He's got a big team and has been doing it for more than 20 years. Many published papers. Invited repeatedly to advise world government's due to his expert status. Widely asserted to be the best in his field.

Guess what - it appears every prediction he ever made was wildly wrong. His predictions for COVID were also wildly wrong. His code was released and it was full of severe bugs. He told the world millions would die of COVID and then when they didn't, claimed his expert recommendations had saved them, all in a fraudulent paper that assumed as a prior that the virus in Sweden mysteriously behaved totally differently to everywhere else and that only lockdowns can possibly affect the course of an epidemic (despite knowing that it isn't true).

This guy has been a failure and fraud his entire life. So has his entire field. It's not just him. All the expert epidemiologists produced models that failed to track reality in any way at all.

Yet, he's an expert by any proxy metric you care to pick. His colleagues rally around, his university protects him, Nature magazine published apologetics for him. He's an expert, unless you pick the only test that matters - are his papers correct?

I know it's scary. But decades, perhaps centuries of near sheep-like behaviour towards science and academics has led to their institutions being saturated with incompetence and fraud. They have no working institutional mechanisms to detect or clear it out. That's why so many fields have "skeptic" movements that "deny" the science. Usually they aren't actually science-deniers as painted, they're people who expected the so-called science to actually care about the scientific method and do their sums right. When they discover that it isn't happening they blog about the errors they found, and the next thing they know, they're being demonised by the press and the very self-same scientists they're criticising. Not because they are wrong, but because they are dangerously right.

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?

If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage, I will have these attributes: 1. Spread it easily; 2. Don't kill the ones who spread it most easily (the young); 3. Be lethal enough to overwhelm the system. And so I have the Covid-19. Of course it is all post-fact analysis. but it also answers your question of why would an experiment make a less sever virus in the first place - to address the bi…

>If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage

You must not know much about bioweapons, then. By any measure, SARS-CoV-2 is a very, very poor bioweapon.

Think about it... it infects everyone but for the most part younger people don't die from it or even become incapacitated. It's mostly killing the elderly or people who have pre-existing conditions.

Effectively, SARS-CoV-2 helps the nation that's infected with it prepare for conventional conflict... it leaves younger people able to fight in the military and with some immunity to the weapon, it greatly reduces the need to care for the elderly or those in poor physical condition, freeing up workers for weapons production or logistics.

It's easy to stop this supposed "weapon" from spreading, just social distance and wear a mask... if everyone does it, the attack is ineffective.

Any country that attacked another using SARS-CoV-2 as a weapon would be suiciding. All the virus would accomplish is making the youngest, most able portion of the target population very angry and reducing the number of non combat capable people they have to take care of.

But wait, you say... the US is having a much higher impact from the virus.

That's because our leadership has failed outright and continues to do so at many levels. Calling the virus a hoax, politically motivated re-openings, the support of ignorance instead of science, conspiracy theories... all due to poor leadership.

Which of course is the real reason this tinfoil hat theory that the virus is a weapon hasn't died yet. Convincing a large number of people that it's a weapon would remove responsibility from Trump and the GOP for failing so incredibly badly, or at least make them look better in the run-up to the election.

The truth is that SARS-CoV-2 isn't a weapon, it's a pandemic which the US could have quickly suppressed and defeated, but did not because our corrupt, inept government worships ignorance instead of enlightenment.

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

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, what's your degree of bio background?

What do you think about this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug Are these people also conspiracy theorists?

I didn't watch more than a few minutes, too much real research going on to keep up with the more fringe stuff.

But tl;dr it could be a lab escape but most virologists think it's more likely to be spontaneous zoonosis. In either case, the evidence for genetic modification or "serial passage" is very weak and the virus's distinguishing traits all fit in well with the background distribution of coronaviruses we know about. So the fixation on lab escape seems like a distraction.

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

#487
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which professional published best case death estimate did the US not beat? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23407130 Excess deaths are the only accurate measure.

Then it was truly unavoidable for the us to keep getting worse and worse, for some reason more in states full of people who think masks are mind control (a total mystery that we will never understand), while other countries are seeing things get better.

We? No. You don't understand. That's fine. You can learn.

https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infan...

You ignored the Q you responded to. "Which professional published best case death estimate did the US not beat?"

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

#488
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the protection of some political language. You’ll need to defend your reasoning just for people to hear you out once there are political implications. And that’s on top of the normal work. I can’t interpret this though so I cannot say myself.

I don’t agree. Political, overconfident language is not scientifically appropriate, especially for a paper purporting to overturn the scientific consensus. Sounds like this is language that was in there before peer review but that was removed before publication. Makes sense that part didn’t pass peer review as it’s improper to make such overconfident conclusions and claims in a scientific paper.

You've won me over. This type of language belongs in accompanying text not directly in a scientific paper.

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

#489
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this could very well be a result of priming people for a consensus (or its opposition) I’m too young to judge but it wasn’t always like this or was it?

Yes, things have always been this way and if you really want to see just how long, look at speeches and other “news” from Ancient Greece. The significant difference today is how quickly and widely falsehoods can be distributed and redistributed, and how many different sources this can happen to. Pre Internet, if I started telling my friends about this thing called QAnon, how far and how quickly could it really spread…

Curious people can read the posts directly at qmap dot pub.

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

#490
post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something about this way of reasoning that seems faulty to me.The reason the Wuhan laboratory was studying coronaviruses in the first place is that there is a large reservoir of the virus in the area. In other terms: diamonds are hard to find, but where you find diamond mines you also find diamonds, ergo: diamond mines must create diamonds.

> I am not equipped to assess the biological evidence [...] I would argue this puts the probability of a lab escape above 50%. That's exactly the faulty reasoning right there.

It's not faulty reasoning, it's how probabilities work. I am estimating the probability of a lab escape given the above information, and without evaluating the biological evidence. It's a prior. By evaluating the biological evidence we can update this probability, but I didn't do that. I'm saying that because the prior is high, it is worth to go ahead and evaluate all the evidence. And I know that when experts who I respect looked at the biological evidence, they came to the same conclusion, namely that a lab escape is likely.
Post reply on HN