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

The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#291

Post by ALittleLight »

zakkeg wrote: post #219
ALittleLight wrote: post #82

One thing I've noticed a lot in articles like this one is how they kind of "both sides" the issue. This article says "With disreputable wing nuts on one side of them and scornful experts on the other" - to make it seem like both the right wing cranks and the experts were wrong here. Right wing cranks way-overstepped by calling it a "bioweapon" without evidence and experts understepped by assuming it was natural witho…

I assume the author, and others referenced in the article, don't want to admit the other "side" was correct. Nor do they want to admit their "side" was wrong. Yeah, it is wrong to claim it was certainly a lab leak when there is little evidence. However, it is also wrong to claim it certainly wasn't a leak for that same reason. Let's just hope the truth is found, and we learn from it. It's hard to do, but simply being…

My take is that this is something where most mainstream media outlets need to be saying "We got it wrong." Either they asserted covid was definitely not a lab leak without evidence, or they ignored major media outlets doing that without comment. The problem here is that this article spends a lot of time and text talking about how right wing cranks were kind of responsible and kind of wrong too, when, in this case, the right wing cranks actually seem pretty accurate.

When I'm wrong, I try to have the grace and maturity to say "I got this wrong. I got this wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z. Here is what I can do to prevent or mitigate X, Y, and Z in the future." I think an answer of that form builds credibility. People who see my mea culpa may gain confidence that I've learned my lesson and will do better in the future. If, instead, I were to say "A lot of people got this wrong. These people I hate were wrong too - kind of, I think they were wrong, they are pretty dumb. Anyway - a lot of people were wrong on this..." then that probably wouldn't inspire much confidence that I had learned my lesson. I read this article as more like the latter rather than the former.

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#292

Post by tripletao »

542458 wrote: post #74
tpfour wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the joint probability of everything we know. p(Epidemic started in Wuhan) * p(origin in market right next to lab) * p(lab is one of 3 in the world to conduct gain-of-function research on conronaviruses) * p(lab scientists were notably sick prior to outbreak) * p(no accident ever happening in a lab) * p(et cetera) = very small number. That's not evidence per se, but it does show you how probable a human error is.

I can’t help but feel you’re taking all the “for” factors and none of the “against”, then bending the “for” factors even further. Calling the market “right next to the lab” is a bit of a stretch - it’s a three and a half hour walk. The scientists getting sick early doesn’t actually seem to be confirmed - there’s still debate in the US intelligence community whether it’s true. And going to the hospital because you’re…

Every published backbone used for genetic experimentation was at some point unpublished. The WIV had the biggest program in the world to sample novel SARS-like coronaviruses from nature, plus the ability to engineer them in the lab. In the words of David Relman:

> This argument [that SARS-CoV-2 must be natural since it doesn't use a known backbone] fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246

Note also that the WIV's public database of viral genomes went offline in Sept 2019, and hasn't come back.

As to the binding, Andersen looked at the binding of SARS-CoV-2's RBD to human ACE2 in silico, and found that it was suboptimal. But that proves only that the RBD wasn't designed in silico using his software workflow. Among unnatural origins, it's far more likely that the RBD either evolved naturally (as Relman proposed above) in a different virus, or evolved quasi-naturally in the lab during culture in human cells or in humanized mice. Andersen's argument doesn't address these more likely possibilities.

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#293

Post by timelincoln »

triceratops wrote: post #175
generalizations wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a statement of consequences; just "the way the world works." Trust the experts if you've no time for more, but this is the likely result. Put time into your own research, and maybe you won't be caught off guard.

> Put time into your own research, and maybe you won't be caught off guard. Why? What guarantees are there that I'll do a better job of research than the experts?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting you learn about virology and fly to wuhan and start looking around. Maintaining multiple explanations as possibilities until one is proven, while resisting political tribalism shrouding your view of the truth, is I suppose hard for many people to pull off. But that is what we’re suggesting you try to do, maybe next time we have a global pandemic…

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#294

Post by deugo »

Natsu wrote: post #247
lurquer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wouldn't say that all GOF research is for bioweapons, part of it is to see where the virus is likely to evolve next and protect against that, which is more on the defensive side of that. Doesn't mean it's less risky, mind you, and this is convincing me that the experts on this need to reassess whether it's worth the risks and if so, what safety precautions are needed. I would think that BSL-2 is just way too low, b…

If you want to take the military lab work with coronavirus seriously, you should instantly forget about a mass-casualty biological weapon. Coronavirus is studied for other purposes than that. Military wants to be able to release a coronavirus which can target on gene profile, or even activate for certain DNA. That way you can release a virus, let it run with all the regular flus, and have your targets die in their own country, of say, a stroke, blood clothing, or they stopped breathing in their sleep. Another study of coronavirus is as a debilitating weapon, much like a cyber attack on hospitals and the energy grid. The entire country suffers an economic crisis and needs to turn their attention away from you to manage it.

The bioweapon thing is a distraction though, I think. There was massive military activity at WIV, and they accidentally released a GoF virus mostly used for publishing papers such as: We made this virus in the freezer infect humans cells, and you can't believe what happened next! It shows (potentially) the potential to become a future pandemic!

It is all so painfully ironic. I think the virology community got afraid of advanced in data modeling, and, avoiding missed grants and early retirement, started to hack Nature because only they could/were allowed to. They bugged out. It happens. They released a "biological weapon" which estimated killed over 8 million people now. They did it from a lab where shady military research is happening. Expose either and the jig is up. Maybe one protects the other...

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#295

Post by lamontcg »

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #249
henearkr wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love more information if you have. Because per se it does not prove the claim of bioengineering.

It's not in Nicolas Wade's article, which I now see has been unfairly maligned along with David Baltimore who's been selectively quoted to leave out the technical detail of what made the latter say the SARS-CoV-2 is a smoking gun, see the 4) A Question of Codons: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th... If correct, that's getting strongly into bioengineering evidence. You are of course more lik…

So you don't have any idea what you're talking about and don't have any ability to weigh if what you're looking at is human bioengineering or natural bionengineering, but you're going to strongly assert that its evidence of human tampering.

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#296

Post by th0ma5 »

tehwebguy wrote: post #206
nostromo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason it's coming out now is because Trump is gone. During the election, most of the media decided to ignore anything they were afraid would help Trump or hurt Biden. Whether an activist media is good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader.

Comments like this bring up so many questions in my mind -- do you prefer conservative news media? If so, are you struggling to find news media to consume? Are you aware of the top cable news network, the newer smaller ones, the media holding companies that dominate local news affiliates and dictate conservative talking points through their hosts, the massively popular hard-right conservative influencers, Facebook, e…

A thousand times this. I'm not sure the underdog, censored thing really works anymore when you can find these ideas and opinions everywhere.

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#297

Post by [deleted] »

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #249
henearkr wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love more information if you have. Because per se it does not prove the claim of bioengineering.

It's not in Nicolas Wade's article, which I now see has been unfairly maligned along with David Baltimore who's been selectively quoted to leave out the technical detail of what made the latter say the SARS-CoV-2 is a smoking gun, see the 4) A Question of Codons: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th... If correct, that's getting strongly into bioengineering evidence. You are of course more lik…

[deleted]

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#298

Post by colechristensen »

seaman1921 wrote: post #42
mmcgaha wrote: post #4

If anything good can come of this, I hope some of the folks who trusted the science begins to realize that people are behind science and people often act in their own best interest. Not that it will change much but we can at least stop yelling down and shaming skeptics.

this is terrifying.. who can we even trust then :\ Such exposed dishonesty leads to more and more people completely losing faith in everything that the scientists say and turning into anti-vaccers etc.

You don't "trust" often or very much. You look for a society where conflicting ideas are encouraged and are based in reason not whacky extremist ideology. You trust good disagreements and debates, you look for argument and parties which try to convince with facts and solid arguments.

We can't just live in a world where my side is right and your side is evil.

The strength of the US system of government and any democracy comes from diversity of thought and opinion which is good enough and respectful enough to actually be interested in arriving at the truth.

Instead we have political process which is somewhere between a reality show, a sporting event, and a religion.

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#299

Post by sellyme »

swader999 wrote: post #178
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how I remember the narrative. It was split in two. 1. Calling it "the china virus", as the former president was wont to do, was labelled racist/bigoted/nationalistic by those who did not simply agree with anything he said. 2. The claim that it originated in the Wuhan lab was viewed as unlikely, and there was (is) an alternative biological origin story which at the time seemed credible and more likely.

It's been practice for centuries to initially name it after where it was first originated. Spanish flu ring a bell? But yeah Trump's racist for saying China flu.

> It's been practice for centuries to initially name it after where it was first originated.

It was practice. Past tense. The WHO changed that practice in 2015 [1]. In fact they explicitly list Spanish Flu as an example of why that practice was flawed.

"Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), people’s names (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chagas disease), species of animal or food (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, monkey pox), cultural, population, industry or occupational references (e.g. legionnaires), and terms that incite undue fear (e.g. unknown, fatal, epidemic)."

[1]: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra...

Re: The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

#300

Post by mitigating »

jkhdigital wrote: post #127
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have an actively status-quo favoring media, not an activist one. The former president was a pathological liar (thousands of documented clear lies during his office), and there were (and are) extremely good reasons to ignore more or less anything he said.

To paraphrase one of my favorite comedies, Super Troopers : “But Trump’s lies are cheeky and fun! Yeah, and the establishment’s lies are cruel and tragic.” Of course this is an overstatement; Trump’s lies were not pretty but the point is that obvious lies are significantly less damaging than well-hidden lies. It’s the skillful liars that one needs to be wary of.

Lying about election fraud has caused a great deal of damage.
Post reply on HN