Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it • Hacker News Board

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#211

Post by bearbin » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

mcbits wrote: post #176

bearbin wrote: post #36

Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…

> ... whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market Maybe this is pedantic, but the introduction to humans could have happened in a wet market whether the virus itself originated in a lab (where bats could have escaped or been smuggled out and sold, etc.) or zoonotically.

Indeed, that is a possibility. It's possible both for the virus to be engineered and spread from the wet-market, and to be zoonotic and spread directly from the lab (where a sample was stored). Perhaps the ambiguity there does contribute to some of the more extreme opinions and discussion.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#212

Post by nyolfen » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #116

haunter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also curious about that. HN has very strong opinions about China especially about the Xinjiang re-education camps and/or the organ harvesting in China YET for some reason can't believe that the same country would lab make a virus like this. idk I'm just an outsider

Bret Weinstein, who has a Ph.D in biology, claims it's highly likely that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was man-made, rather than naturally occurring. So it's definitely possible it was a test that went wrong (and let's be honest, the Chinese government has a less than stellar safety record).

specifically he is a specialist in bat biology, but perhaps more relevantly he had a very interesting conversation with a russian virologist who also thinks this is the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug

here is an essay written by his guest:

https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug...

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#213

Post by someperson » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #191

iso1210 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SARS was proven to come from wetmarkets back in 2003. They were banned by China, then unbanned later.

China has never banned wet markets. A wet market is just a place that sells fresh meat or vegetables. The butcher who supplies your favorite restaurant is a wet market. The fruit & veg stand where you buy organic heirloom tomatoes is a wet market. Every farmer's market is a wet market. "Wet market" just distinguishes from "dry market" where durable goods like electronics are sold. China never banned wet markets, whic…

People use wet market synonymously with 'exotic wildlife market' that sell living caged animals in outdoor unsanitary conditions. Often cages stacked on top of each other.

Factory farming of eg, chickens and pigs has previously led to avian and swine flu outbreaks, so there's strict monitoring of viruses around those farm monocultures. But in the wet markets of Asia there's often multiple species together that would rarely encounter each other in the wild.

Traditional Chinese Medicine uses bat feces, pangolin scales and other exotic products, with an emphasis on live animals. Bats and pangolins are a vector for virus and cross-species virus transmission.

Moving wet markets indoors into sanitary conditions, and banning the sale of live produce would go a long way to preventing future outbreaks.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#214

Post by blywi » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #104

One thing I wonder is: How did the UK virus suddenly get 17 mutations at once if it's not a new engineered release by someone? I'm not a biologist, but that part had me wondering. Any biologists here who want to explain for a layman?

Not a biologist. But this interesting article [1] in Science Magazine, describes a possible route how SARS-CoV-2 may acquire multiple new mutations: Immunocompromised patients with long running infections. Two cases have been independently reported in the UK and US. The patients have been infected for a duration of 101 and 154 days respectively. In both patients the virus acquired multiple new mutations, both were eventually treated with antibodies, but have still died in the end. It looks like a weak immune response which is not sufficient to clear the virus, may help the virus by giving it the time needed to further adapt to it's human host.

[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/uk-variant-puts-spot...

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#215

Post by artichokes » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

NationalPark wrote: post #184

casefields wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is on par with election fraud. No matter if there is any, one side will downplay while the other screams it’s the tip of the iceberg. Both sides know presidential elections are a zero-sum game and will do whatever it takes to win. Again, I don’t think there was that much, let alone enough to swing the election, but we can’t even discuss any of it honestly.

But you aren't even trying to discuss it honestly! The prior probability of voter fraud is so low that it demands really incredible evidence. When you frame it like "vote fraud or not voter fraud", you're implicitly lending a whole lot of credibility to something that is, well, not the least bit credible. Also, to borrow from a completely different polarizing thread, you're making a classic motte-and-bailey argument…

>The prior probability of voter fraud is so low that it demands really incredible evidence.

The prior probability of voter fraud is the number of elections in which actors have engaged in fraud / the total number of elections that taken place. Consider any of the countless elections that have taken place around the world and throughout history. Do you believe that the number of them in which actors engaged in fraud is so low as to be incredible, when you think about countries and time periods that are not the country and time period you presently live in? Peruvian elections in 1960. Scottish elections in 1990. Zimbabwe in 1994. I'm just naming random countries/times here. What percentage of these do you think involved fraud? That's what the prior probability is.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#216

Post by throwaway201103 » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

upbeat_general wrote: post #175

alphabettsy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using this logic isn’t it likely it came from the US? Simultaneously saying it’s nothing and China did it seems suspicious.

The US response was shit but A) we have a timeline of events so we know it came from China B) the US didn’t cover things up, rather some politicians (trump for one) massively downplayed the virus.

It wasn't just Trump downplaying. I have emails from my employer about it from early February saying that "common influenza" still represented a greater risk. This was based on CDC/medical expert advise, no doubt.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#217

Post by someperson » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #143

altarius wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the report, most of the likelihood is from a single "prior". The whole likelihood basically hinges on the fact that the outbreak occurred in Wuhan and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working for decades on enhancing coronavirus strains. That's quite strongly circumstantial but it's not evidence. Possible chimerization and furin-cleavage insertion seem a lot more interesting imo but are weight…

And that is very solid bayesian logic. Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China, and was specifically working on gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The initial prior of zoonotic origin simply because that was usually the case in the past is just as circumstantial, but also just as solid in bayesian terms.

> Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China

The Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Heilongjiang is another BSL-4 lab

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#218

Post by wuwuno » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

I've been saying it was an accidental release since mid December of last year.

Everyone is focused on the genetics of the virus, but honestly that doesn't really tell us anything about how it was introduced into the human population. Frankly someone could have been legitimately studying the virus which was was circulating naturally in the bat community, with zero intention of trying to weaponize the virus, but anyone with access could have easily stolen some of the virus and deliberately infected themselves or someone else.

I read an article on December 13 or 14 of 2019 about a 20 cases of a "strange new flu" circulating in Wuhan. When the Chinese publicly admitted they had a problem at the end of December, they said they only had a handful of cases.

Finding 20 cases of a 'new flu' that has the same symptoms as the regular flu is impossible, there wasn't a test available for months, so the Chinese would have had no way to identify a 'new flu' at the time of infection.

There is only 3 ways for the health officials to know they have a 'new flu' circulating based on cases:

1) There are significantly more cases of the flu circulating than during a peak year. 2) There are significantly more flu deaths relative to the number of patients. 3) The cases have significantly different symptoms than the regular flu.

None of these situation was present for Wuhan during the early days of the virus. So that means the Chinese needed some other way to identify that they had a new flu circulating, and identify it with so few cases. Even when the COVID19 was peaking in China they still didn't have enough cases that would be significantly higher than the number of flu cases they would have during the same period.

A deliberate release or an accidental lab release is the only real way to know that a 'new flu' is circulating, when there are so few cases, and symptoms that are identical to the flu.

I believe the Chinese were studying the virus, and then due to an accident, or just sloppy lab work, even in China the lab techs are overworked and underpaid, someone got infected. Knowing human nature, the person who had the accident or was sloppy tried to cover up what happened, because they didn't want to lose their job. Unfortunately the person was infected, and maybe became ill, they also spread the infection into the community. At some point the person who originally got infected was forced to admit their mistake, either because they were sick, or because people they knew were getting sick, and trying to cover what happened became impossible.

Once the Chinese government learned of the accident/sloppy lab work it would be really easy to do contact tracing and identify a handful of cases, it would also be really easy to tell the world that that virus started in the wet market, because those markets have already been idenified as a potential risk for a pandemic level virus.

If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine but please explain how the Chinese could possibly know they had a new virus/flu circulating, with almost no data, cases, deaths, or novel symptoms. They knew because it was a accidental lab release, that's how they knew.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#219

Post by freddie_mercury » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

someperson wrote: post #213

freddie_mercury wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has never banned wet markets. A wet market is just a place that sells fresh meat or vegetables. The butcher who supplies your favorite restaurant is a wet market. The fruit & veg stand where you buy organic heirloom tomatoes is a wet market. Every farmer's market is a wet market. "Wet market" just distinguishes from "dry market" where durable goods like electronics are sold. China never banned wet markets, whic…

People use wet market synonymously with 'exotic wildlife market' that sell living caged animals in outdoor unsanitary conditions. Often cages stacked on top of each other. Factory farming of eg, chickens and pigs has previously led to avian and swine flu outbreaks, so there's strict monitoring of viruses around those farm monocultures. But in the wet markets of Asia there's often multiple species together that would…

Some people might use it that way.

No one who lives in Asia around wet markets uses it that way.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point that China never banned wet markets, not even for one day.

Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it

#220

Post by incrudible » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #200

incrudible wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do they not consider the simple alternative, that a location that specialises in gain-of-function research of coronaviruses has the highest concentration of people who are able to DETECT novel coronaviruses with a much higher likelihood? If the virus originated in a city that has no lab specializing in these viruses, how would they ever have distinguished it from pneumonia? SARS has a distinct clinical patholog…

Okay, but the exact same logic applies? Doctors who are experts in disease detection likely reside close to clusters that study said diseases and have high populations and access to modern technology. Put it very concretely, say patient 0 was infected in a village a hundred miles away, is asymptomatic like most patients, travels to Wuhan, infects someone, that person is the officially first detected case.

If you're generalizing it like that, your argument becomes weak. There's no connection with these physicians and the virologists required in order to detect a SARS outbreak, and (to my knowledge) no such connection existed.

Remember, you're using this argument to dismiss the fact that the outbreak happened in the one city where the world's top virologists on the topic of bat coronaviruses were performing gain-of-function experiments. The virus samples were obtained hundreds of miles away in Southern China, where these bats actually live and where the SARS1 outbreak originated. There are no bats in Wuhan, no bats were found in the food markets and no other intermediate host has been identified.

That's a lot of circumstance that isn't dismissed quite as easily.