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

Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

eu.usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#251

Post by 8note »

goatcode wrote: post #229
Ancapistani wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's just no realistic chance a novel virus coincidentally originates in the same isolated place as a lab that specializes in that exact same type of virus. I think that it is at least somewhat likely that it was the result of the lab's activities, but your assertion here has a huge dose of selection bias. If the virology labs studying coronaviruses were placed randomly around the world, you'd be correct - but t…

> It would be equivalent to say that lighthouses cause ships to run aground, because many teams when ships run aground it's near a lighthouse. But if a lighthouse manufactured coral reefs, and the coral reefs on which ships were running aground displayed features of those that a given lighthouse manufactured, it might be more accurate.

Coral reefs do like to form on sunken ships, so that's still not far off

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#252

Post by koheripbal »

stonogo wrote: post #147
dang wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi dang, I am curious to know if this guideline applies only when responding to HN comments, or if it should be applied to source material in article links as well. I've noticed a lot more conspiracy-theorizing comments lately and it's hard to engage when the whole premise of a given comment is accusing someone else of misrepresenting facts. Thanks for all your hard work, regardless!

I'm not Dang, but I think it's a generally good life lesson that should apply always.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#253

Post by hfjfktkrkf »

xdavidliu wrote: post #230
colllectorof wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, dude, leading experts have looked at this claim and said there is nearly zero chance this has was a lab leak: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/8417296... I mean, yeah, five out of 6 cited experts have ties to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn has funding ties to one of the two virology labs in Wuhan, but that's, like, just a coincidence. If it wasn't, I'm sure NPR would mention it. And then…

I have no strong opinions on this matter, but I'm having difficulty understanding the sarcasm here. Can someone translate for me? Is the un-sarcastic version of parent's argument that most of the claims against this being a leak were put forth by a single organization, EcoHealth Alliance, which has an agenda for convincing people that this is not a leak?

> EcoHealth Alliance, which has an agenda for convincing people that this is not a leak?

Exactly that. The first paper which discredited the lab leak theory published in The Lancet early last year by a number of scientists was later found out to have been organized behind the scenes by EcoHealth, which also asked for it's name not to appear on the paper.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/ecohealth-allian...

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#254

Post by dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp »

So much opinionated certainty.

Seems like the only consensus is that the origin was (lab-leak || zoonotic). Given the unlikelihood of ever knowing the true origin story, future epidemic mitigation efforts should just assume both causes. History is rich with examples of both.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#255

Post by esja »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #225
colllectorof wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, dude, leading experts have looked at this claim and said there is nearly zero chance this has was a lab leak: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/8417296... I mean, yeah, five out of 6 cited experts have ties to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn has funding ties to one of the two virology labs in Wuhan, but that's, like, just a coincidence. If it wasn't, I'm sure NPR would mention it. And then…

The WHO and Peter Daszak also said they weren’t given enough access to develop any deliberate conclusions.

A proper investigation would not include Peter Daszak at all, due to his immense conflicts of interest on this topic, and his behaviour since the outbreak occurred.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#256

Post by ginko »

angio wrote: post #206
Ancapistani wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's just no realistic chance a novel virus coincidentally originates in the same isolated place as a lab that specializes in that exact same type of virus. I think that it is at least somewhat likely that it was the result of the lab's activities, but your assertion here has a huge dose of selection bias. If the virology labs studying coronaviruses were placed randomly around the world, you'd be correct - but t…

Another selection bias is that we can't say if the virus originated there, but only that it was first detected there. Even if it originated in the countryside hundreds of miles away it makes sense it was detected only after it spread to a city with the labs to discover the virus.

The virus was first sequenced by a lab in Shanghai. The WIV wasn't involved in the discovery of the virus.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#257

Post by 13415 »

asmint3 wrote: post #151

That we’re finally seeing some mainstream discussion around this hypothesis should not change the scary fact that months ago governments, scientists and media happily and immediately rejected it as a xenophobic conspiracy theory. The messaging and subsequent ease at which public opinion was influenced should make everyone pause and think hard about other ways they might be being manipulated.

That's not true, there were plenty of mainstream media reports of these suspicions and the vast majority of them were correctly pointing out the same as they are pointing out today, namely that there is no concrete evidence for the theory and it therefore remains speculation. We would presumably know more if journalists from all over the world could report freely from China, but realistically speaking their work possibilities are limited there.

It's a bit annoying that so many adults continue to mix up speculation with real evidence, and make up their minds based on gut feelings. That is not to say governments shouldn't put pressure on China to be more transparent, of course they should. But judging from the actual information available, the virus most likely jumped from an animal to humans due to the bad conditions of wet markets in China.

While China is to blame for such markets, people need to bear in mind that the same can happen in many other places where animals are farmed closely together with humans. Even if it was true, the Wuhan lab theory would unfortunately distract from this real problem.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#258

Post by sweis »

"WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic" https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/15/9775278...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/health/WHO-covid-daszak-c...

Historically, SARS-CoV-1 is suspected of being transmitted from bats to civets: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291347/

In Feb 2020, China shut down its wildlife farming industry and sent out directions on how to kill and dispose of the animals: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00677-0

http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202002/c56b129850aa42acb584...

https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/china/article/...

Wildlife farming was a $70B industry that employed around 2% of China's workforce. There was a short-lived ban in 2003 in response to SARS-CoV-1, which was later rescinded.

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#259

Post by polartx »

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #207
tbenst wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is irresponsibility propagating a conspiracy theory and elevating its status in the public’s mind. I’m a bioscientist. It’s frustrating to respond with evidence and in good faith, and be downvoted by those who simply disagree. But sadly it appears that the loudest voice prevails over reason. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00599-7

Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have pointed out, lab-leak does not imply artificially developed. > I’m a bioscientist. And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that: - the virus appeared to originate in Wuhan - genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% id…

Archiving this before it’s removed for ‘elevating an idea to the public mind’

Re: Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed

#260

Post by hospadar »

Like, so what?

Should we care a lot about the safety and security of places where dangerous infectious diseases are studied? sure!

I think we should care A LOT MORE about our [apparent total lack of] ability to quickly deploy effective public health responses to new infectious diseases (regardless of their source).

Maybe it was an accident at a sloppy lab, ok, so labs on the other side of the planet in sovereign countries we do not control might make mistakes. We should get better at responding fast to save lives.

Maybe it was a sinister bio-terrorism plot. We should get better at responding fast to save lives. Bio-terror/warfare plan looks a whole lot like a good public health plan IMO.

Maybe gasp it really was from bats or something. We should get better at responding fast to save lives. This stuff DOES happen.

Maybe s/.*/I don't care where it came from/g. We should get better at responding fast and saving lives (my opinion).

Post reply on HN