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

Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 662 posts

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#71

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

endisneigh wrote: post #63
engineer_22 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflict over the investigation is justifiable. It's necessary to understand how the virus got started. If it's lab-grown we will want to be very careful to scrutinize each other's labs. If it's natural we will want to be very careful to scrutinize wild game. The implications of any scenario are broad and complex, but clearly we don't want a repeat of 2020 if we can avoid it. Another point: just because there's s…

Thank you for your comment, but your comment is precisely the kind of comment I disagree with. What difference does it make? Let's say that it's both lab-grown and wild game. OK, so that means we should scrutinize both. OK, then. Now what? No amount of scrutiny can prevent an accident from occurring. It's not as if this pandemic happens every year. We're talking about a once in a century event. Not to mention some co…

We're not talking about a once a century event. This is the third novel coronavirus outbreak in the past 2 decades, and it seems clear that SARS at least could have been pandemic if we hadn't gotten lucky.

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#72

Post by gfodor »

space_fountain wrote: post #29
gfodor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's Razor doesn't really apply to this one, because each side has different priors on which theory is actually the "simplest." Given that, as far as I know, we don't have a single human case documented before those in Wuhan - something which a) should have been likely and b) China would be highly incentivized to root out since it would disprove the lab hypothesis, it implies patient zero was probably in Wuhan. If…

Are they incentivized to do that? Remember they’re dealing not just with The west’s opinion, but also home opinion, where I don’t know that documenting that they should have found this weeks earlier would go over well. Not to mention I think they’re happy with the current local conspiracy theory that this was actually the US’s fault. It also seems likely that a big city especially one with a big lab would be more lik…

I'm not an expert on China but I would generally assume that the consequences and reputational damage of being seen as responsible by the rest of the world for COVID-19 would outstrip nearly any other possible consequences being mitigated against by not seeking to clear themselves.

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#73

Post by tzs »

silicon2401 wrote: post #8
VBprogrammer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone's reasons for saying it are simply because it aligns with their own prejudices, shouting it down is reasonable.

That's literally the ad hominem fallacy. We should investigate the claim on its own merits, not the merits of whoever is making the claim

It is ad hominem but not ad hominem fallacy. Wikipedia gives a good summary [1] of when ad hominem is not a fallacy:

> Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.

For example, if someone tells you that hydroxychloroquinea will cure COVID and cites a doctor, it is an ad hominem not but not a fallacy to counter that the same doctor also says that infertility, impotence, cysts, and various other reproductive medical problems are caused by witches and demons that have sex with people in the dreamworld, where they also gather sperm from people and use it on other people to produce more demons. (And yes, there really is a doctor who says all that).

It's not a fallacy because it is not offered to refute the claim that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID--it is offered to show that the person making the claim is not competent to make the claim.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#74

Post by engineer_22 »

endisneigh wrote: post #63
engineer_22 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflict over the investigation is justifiable. It's necessary to understand how the virus got started. If it's lab-grown we will want to be very careful to scrutinize each other's labs. If it's natural we will want to be very careful to scrutinize wild game. The implications of any scenario are broad and complex, but clearly we don't want a repeat of 2020 if we can avoid it. Another point: just because there's s…

Thank you for your comment, but your comment is precisely the kind of comment I disagree with. What difference does it make? Let's say that it's both lab-grown and wild game. OK, so that means we should scrutinize both. OK, then. Now what? No amount of scrutiny can prevent an accident from occurring. It's not as if this pandemic happens every year. We're talking about a once in a century event. Not to mention some co…

Here's an example: one of your local health department's jobs is to scrutinize private businesses sanitation practices so you don't get sick from contaminated food. Ditto the water systems, so you don't get sick from contaminated water. The idea is to prevent complacency.

Prior to that, people did get sick, and public investigations were mounted to pinpoint the problem. Nobody wanted to admit to themselves that they were to blame, that they had hurt or killed someone, but the society benefited from the momentary discomfort and those hard truths.

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#75

Post by lhorie »

metalliqaz wrote: post #37

it's not xenophobic, but xenophobic people really love to talk about it. that's the problem with the discourse. of course the irony is that it doesn't even matter. We already know China (1) tried to cover it up, screwing the rest of the world, and (2) has poor wet market sanitation practices that seem designed to cultivate these kinds of diseases. Those issues are already bad enough.

> has poor wet market sanitation practices

Honest question: Is that a fair/accurate generalization to make? If Hell's kitchen episodes and accounts from food industry workers are any indication, sanitation practices in food handling establishments elsewhere are not necessarily always stellar either. And surely China has some equivalent of WholeFoods?

One ought to be careful not to attribute a characteristic differently depending on whether they belong to the class of people in question[0]. If it turns out that reality is that some chinese establishments have poor sanitation practices just like some US establishments do, and it just so happens that they got unlucky (perhaps partially due to not-so-directly-related aspects like zoning law differences or propensity for higher bat populations due to local fauna/flora ecosystems), the us-vs-them blaming game doesn't necessarily have as strong legs to stand on.

[0] https://xkcd.com/385/

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#76

Post by EMM_386 »

The 2018 US state department cables warning about this possibility can be read here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-state-depart...

Please note part (6) regarding WIV scientists studying human-disease causing SARS coronaviruses.

Also note this report with the science to back it ("The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin"):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bies.2020002...

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#77

Post by endisneigh »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71
endisneigh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your comment, but your comment is precisely the kind of comment I disagree with. What difference does it make? Let's say that it's both lab-grown and wild game. OK, so that means we should scrutinize both. OK, then. Now what? No amount of scrutiny can prevent an accident from occurring. It's not as if this pandemic happens every year. We're talking about a once in a century event. Not to mention some co…

We're not talking about a once a century event. This is the third novel coronavirus outbreak in the past 2 decades, and it seems clear that SARS at least could have been pandemic if we hadn't gotten lucky.

Sure, but ultimately what's relevant here are the number of deaths. The other two killed orders of magnitude fewer people worldwide given the amount of time, no?

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#78

Post by abecedarius »

endisneigh wrote: post #42

Every time this comes I ask - "so what?" So again, I ask - even if it's true, so what? It's impossible to conclusively prove, and even if proven what exactly is proven? That an accident occurred? OK, so what? The article attempts to answer this: > The vitriol also obscures a broader imperative, Relman says, which is that uncovering the virus’s origins is crucial to stopping the next pandemic. Threats from both lab ac…

All else aside, the attempt to squelch these inquiries as off-limits justifies resistance. The more scientific consensus is about social power, the worse for science.

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#79

Post by endisneigh »

engineer_22 wrote: post #74
endisneigh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your comment, but your comment is precisely the kind of comment I disagree with. What difference does it make? Let's say that it's both lab-grown and wild game. OK, so that means we should scrutinize both. OK, then. Now what? No amount of scrutiny can prevent an accident from occurring. It's not as if this pandemic happens every year. We're talking about a once in a century event. Not to mention some co…

Here's an example: one of your local health department's jobs is to scrutinize private businesses sanitation practices so you don't get sick from contaminated food. Ditto the water systems, so you don't get sick from contaminated water. The idea is to prevent complacency. Prior to that, people did get sick, and public investigations were mounted to pinpoint the problem. Nobody wanted to admit to themselves that they…

I don't think your example is relevant nor is it a good analogy.

The situation is more like you're McDonalds and everyone at your store and your competitors stores are getting food poisoning.

Instead of properly understanding why contaminated food is arriving at your store and stopping the poisoning within your store, you're researching whether or not the contaminated food originated at Burger King.

It's not bad to research whether or not the contaminated food originated at Burger King, but regardless knowing that isn't going to stop the food poisoning from spreading within your store.

I like this analogy because there are already food safety laws just like how there are safety standards for working within a lab. Regardless, accidents happen, and people get poisoned. Kind of like the Chipotle outbreaks.

Re: Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out

#80

Post by EMM_386 »

endisneigh wrote: post #42

Every time this comes I ask - "so what?" So again, I ask - even if it's true, so what? It's impossible to conclusively prove, and even if proven what exactly is proven? That an accident occurred? OK, so what? The article attempts to answer this: > The vitriol also obscures a broader imperative, Relman says, which is that uncovering the virus’s origins is crucial to stopping the next pandemic. Threats from both lab ac…

> Even if China was malicious and deliberately sent it off to us, it could've been easily stopped but we didn't do it.

I don't think this is the argument.

China was affected by it immediately to, so it would seem that this wasn't intentional.

The question is what exactly was the Wuhan lab studying, why, and funded by whom. We already know part of this was funded by the US Government.

The information is all online about their studies specifically with ACE2 and coronaviruses, and suddenly we end up with a global pandemic where the virus latches onto human ACE2. Originating in Wuhan.

Post reply on HN