The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan • Hacker News Board

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#91

Post by Nursie » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:44 AM UTC

vimy wrote: post #62

gloriousternary wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think Mastodon is already about as easy to use as possible. The real problem is the network effect, and the fact that the average person really just doesn't care enough about the benefits you get from it. What we really need is a libre, decentralized social network that's "cool" enough that non-tech people would have FOMO if they don't join. That's a much harder problem, one that I certainly won't be able…

Maybe https://bitclout.com/

Wow no. That's not going to appeal to normal people.

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#92

Post by andreilys » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:45 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #76

rossdavidh wrote: post #69

Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab…

Much of this reminds me of how we went to war against Iraq The lead author of the WSJ piece on the "sick lab workers" is the same author that helped get us into Iraq with a NYT article on Hussein's nuclear WMD program in 2002.

It’s almost like those two pieces are completely unrelated to one another.

If you’re looking for someone with a clean record commenting on the viability of the lab leak theory for months, take a look at Bret Weinstein.

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#93

Post by beerandt » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #25

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... we should really have a debate about platform-vs-publisher status of media.

Platform/publisher isn't a thing. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201017/13051145526/secti...

There's no legally spelled out condition, but one editorializes content and the other is content agnostic.

The justification of 230's existence is that the host shouldn't be liable, because it's not their speech.

That's no longer true if they're picking and choosing what gets heard, what gets buried, and what gets banned.

They may not be typing the post, but they're determining what actually gets said. And that means they no longer deserve 230 protection.

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#94

Post by andreilys » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

tynpeddler wrote: post #63

This article has a number of issues that jump out to me from just a cursory read. The author admits that the NIH has a specific definition of "gain of function research" and then seems to go forward with the article using their own definition, without calling out that they're doing this. Why are they using their own definition instead of the NIH's? The Chinese research this author cites claims that there are large re…

To many of these lab leak articles are structured distressingly like a Q-drop:

Similar to the way the Zoonotic link articles are structured as the Ultimate Truth which must not be questioned (even as early as one month into the pandemic).

It only took a year later for prominent blue tribe members like Jon Stewart to point out how ridiculous the dominant narrative was.

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#95

Post by andreilys » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:50 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #75

The problem with this whole article is that we know of no suitable backbone virus to use, and we know of no suitable spike-protein sequence to form a chimera which results in SARS-CoV-2. The experiments done on the SARS-CoV-1 or WIV1 backbone don't remotely get you close to SARS-CoV-2 and you're dealing with centuries of evolutionary difference there. The RaTG13 virus backbone is also several decades of evolution awa…

Yet almost a year later and still no smoking gun showing a clear zoonotic link.

I suppose we’ll never find one because China has no interest in getting to the truth. Cooperation means disclosing things which have the potential to make them look bad so why risk it?

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#96

Post by raphlinus » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

wombatmobile wrote: post #89

raphlinus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while. Here's a cite[1] from 2018 from Marc Lipsitch, who would be on most people's top ten list of trusted virologists on Covid. He's also one of the signatories of the letter calling for investigation[2]. I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we sh…

> Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while The quotation you cite from Lipitsch doesn't validate your comment. He wasn't "questioning gain of function research". He was calling for greater oversight over gain of function research and for more initiatives to try to limit the damage potential of zoonotic spillover. If anything, Lipitsch was upholding the value of gain…

Huh? The title of the piece is "Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?" The introduction specifically criticizes entire categories of GoF research, stating that it goes against the consensus view of many virologists. How is that not "questioning?" Lipsitch has been consistently critical in other fora too, including a quote in a Science piece[1], a call for a debate[2], and other communications.

Now, one thing that is going on in a lot of the discussion (and which makes reasoned discourse harder) is that many people mean different things when talking about "gain of function." For some, it's anything that creates a pathogen that's potentially infectious to humans, which potentially covers a lot of experiments to test transmissibility and other factors. For others, it has to be specifically engineering to increase transmissibility or virulence [3]. That can lead to confusion, for example the debate about whether Fauci's denial that the NIAID funded GoF research was honest.

I very carefully check my sources when posting, but am sure I make mistakes. When I do, I'm happy to be corrected. But this seems a very odd thing to call me out for.

[1]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controvers...

[2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269283247_Gain-of-f...

[3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#97

Post by tick_tock_tick » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #25

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... we should really have a debate about platform-vs-publisher status of media.

Platform/publisher isn't a thing. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201017/13051145526/secti...

They want to have a discussion/debate on what rules should exist. Just because there aren't current rules doesn't preclude us from making some....

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#98

Post by tedk-42 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

runawaybottle wrote: post #90

echelon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't a biological weapon. Gain of function research was being carried out for the benefit of society (or resume padding). However, it wasn't subject to oversight (to put it mildly) and was being handled by a lab ill-equipped to do so safely. China has massive zoonotic reservoirs. The US researchers that led the world in Coronavirus study wanted to do gain of function, but couldn't do it domestically and didn't…

The lab was sloppy, the modified virus leaked, and the rest is history. That is the most likely explanation, and it is unfortunate you are getting so heavily downvoted. There are probably only a handful of people ultimately responsible for this. Again, how much do lab assistants make? I know it’s not a lot in America, and even less in China. I wonder who the person was cleaning bat poop, feeding them, etc. Some under…

So then everything this scientist [1] says about the lab is a total lie?

`There were strict protocols and requirements aimed at containing the pathogens being studied, Anderson said, and researchers underwent 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.`

Your Wendy's burger example is extremely naive as it compares two very different work environments. I highly doubt you could simply walk in and get a job at the lab as you can at a fast food outlet.

Fact is none of us were in the lab and China haven't done a very good job being open and honest about their research there. But I really don't think propagating this simplistic idea that it was a lab leak is fair on anyone.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#99

Post by amazingman » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 1:07 AM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #92

lamontcg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of this reminds me of how we went to war against Iraq The lead author of the WSJ piece on the "sick lab workers" is the same author that helped get us into Iraq with a NYT article on Hussein's nuclear WMD program in 2002.

It’s almost like those two pieces are completely unrelated to one another. If you’re looking for someone with a clean record commenting on the viability of the lab leak theory for months, take a look at Bret Weinstein.

I took a look at Bret Weinstein, and it wasn’t good. Not good at all. He seemed to be making every effort he could to blame the mRNA vaccines for problems that —if true— could have any number of mundane explanations. But hey, maybe he’s right about the lab leak theory.

Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

#100

Post by alevskaya » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #95

lamontcg wrote: post #75

The problem with this whole article is that we know of no suitable backbone virus to use, and we know of no suitable spike-protein sequence to form a chimera which results in SARS-CoV-2. The experiments done on the SARS-CoV-1 or WIV1 backbone don't remotely get you close to SARS-CoV-2 and you're dealing with centuries of evolutionary difference there. The RaTG13 virus backbone is also several decades of evolution awa…

Yet almost a year later and still no smoking gun showing a clear zoonotic link. I suppose we’ll never find one because China has no interest in getting to the truth. Cooperation means disclosing things which have the potential to make them look bad so why risk it?

Proving the zoonotic chain of transmission is not a quick or easy thing to do even in a cooperative geopolitical environment. This is not a field that lends itself to snappy "smoking guns". It took years to build the evidence for civet-cats and SARS-1 and we still don't know for certain what the wild ebola reservoir is.