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

The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 233 posts

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#61

Post by aliasEli »

ChemSpider wrote: post #50
Synaesthesia wrote: post #30

As far as I'm concerned it's largely irrelevant, because the real question is how the governments all handled the Covid crisis, once it was out in the open.

Not really. Once thing the lab leak theory would explain is that why the virus was so unexpectedly infective right from the start (adapted to human tissue e. g. via passage in humanized mice). In that sense, I hope that it was a lab leak. It will be better for us humans.

This is simply the result of natural selection, there are tons of viruses that are less infectious, but they simply die out.

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#62

Post by bellyfullofbac »

Huh, the second sentence of the article made me doubt how good it is...

> Last spring, the media accurately reported the scientific consensus that Covid (also known as SARS CoV-2) is a natural virus [...]

To be pedantic: No, lady, Covid is the disease, and the virus is SARS-CoV-2. Like AIDS and HIV (disease and virus respectively).

It's a little thing, but accuracy in journalism is still important (or is it just me?).

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#63

Post by aliasEli »

corty wrote: post #5
aritmo wrote: post #2

It's kinda obvious that the 'lab leak theory' was created just to attack China.

Of course the theory is used that way, it fits nicely into various political arguments. But that doesn't influence the veracity of the lab leak theory either way. Looking at the article, it also uses weak arguments to support its thesis: "She first takes aim at the popular version of the lab leak theory that posits that Covid was taken from nature and escaped in its wild form. The problem with that scenario, she told…

> a swab from a bat contains very little infectious virus

We know that they were doing gain of function research, but that only works with live viruses. So they must have some method to cultivate the virus. When they can do that small size of the initial sample is no longer relevant.

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#64

Post by hanklazard »

ricksunny wrote: post #48

The authors of the original Lancet letter (Daszak included) just came out with a similarly-toned new one in the same publication - with 3 of their co-signers from last year now having dropped out of it: https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/14122249205375139...

> On Feb 19, 2020, we, a group of physicians, veterinarians, epidemiologists, virologists, biologists, ecologists, and public health experts from around the world, joined together to express solidarity with our professional colleagues in China.1 Unsubstantiated allegations were being raised about the source of the COVID-19 outbreak and the integrity of our peers who were diligently working to learn more about the newly recognised virus, SARS-CoV-2, while struggling to care for the many patients admitted to hospital with severe illness in Wuhan and elsewhere in China.

This is such an odd way to discuss an issue of finding the truth. This first paragraph of the article seems to intentionally try to create a sense of sympathy for the Chinese scientists against whom “unsubstantiated allegations” were being leveled. Of course we should all feel bad for well-intentioned people being thrown into the controversy of the pandemic origins, but this is not about shielding people from difficult circumstances—this is about finding truth so that we can minimize the risk that this ever happens again.

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#65

Post by vcavallo »

aliasEli wrote: post #61
ChemSpider wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Once thing the lab leak theory would explain is that why the virus was so unexpectedly infective right from the start (adapted to human tissue e. g. via passage in humanized mice). In that sense, I hope that it was a lab leak. It will be better for us humans.

This is simply the result of natural selection, there are tons of viruses that are less infectious, but they simply die out.

It had this quality seemingly out of the gate, not after a period of selection. that’s part of the problem.

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#66

Post by 0-_-0 »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #62

Huh, the second sentence of the article made me doubt how good it is... > Last spring, the media accurately reported the scientific consensus that Covid (also known as SARS CoV-2) is a natural virus [...] To be pedantic: No, lady, Covid is the disease, and the virus is SARS-CoV-2. Like AIDS and HIV (disease and virus respectively). It's a little thing, but accuracy in journalism is still important (or is it just me?)…

Additionally:

1. There wasn't a consensus, some scientists disagreed

2. A natural virus can leak from a lab

Also, a reminder that biosecurity incidents are common, there were about 17 in the last decade [0]. Just (natural) SARS-CoV-1 leaked from the lab 4 times [1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

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

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#67

Post by 0-_-0 »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #23
jfktkrkfk wrote: post #11

In 10 years China will be the foremost global superpower. I would urge everyone to be very carefully in their criticism of China or support of Taiwan. Remember that what you say on the Internet can live forever. People are being cancelled for far less. And China will not cancel in the way the West cancels. Instead of being fired, be prepared for your whole life to be destroyed, and maybe you being even imprisoned if…

How is this not just a crap take on Roko's Basilisk?

It's still much more realistic than Roko's Basilisk :)

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#68

Post by jeegsy »

emilgouliev wrote: post #10
_huayra_ wrote: post #7

As someone who is out of the loop on this and only a basic understanding, it seems very peculiar that scientists were so quickly to just jump on the "it must be bats and a wet market" thing so early on despite the Wuhan lab being right there. It's like when some out-of-control company creates a superfund site through gross negligence of industrial byproduct handling and then goes "idk cancer gonna cancer. you can't l…

“When HIV/AIDS emerged in the 1980s, it was alleged, with a little Soviet help, that the virus had been developed in an American lab. Between Washington’s inaction on the epidemic and its sordid past of shady experiments, proponents said the theory couldn’t be dismissed out of hand. After many early cases of tick-borne Lyme disease were first identified around Long Island Sound, it was deemed too much of a coincidenc…

> This literally happens every goddamn time. Natural explanation is simpler.

NO it doesn't. Just because some theories LATER turned out to be wrong does not mean that we automatically dismissing this or that theory. It really doesn't matter if the "lab leak theory" is later on definitively discredited. To me thats not the point. The point is whether or not there was any justification for not only ignoring but actively removing it from discourse urgently as was done at a time when no one knew anything for certain.

Re: The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory

#70

Post by forcry »

simonh wrote: post #44
GekkePrutser wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the current pandemic yes, but we could start banning all gain of function research to make another one less likely. And increase lab safety measures.

That's not necessarily the best response even in that case. We know for a fact that animal to human transmission happens, and that it will happen again. I don't know the ins and outs but it's possible that gain of function research could be crucial in preventing or fighting future natural outbreaks. That's a judgement that we should consider carefully. If you're fighting a shooting war and you have an explosion in a…

>If you're fighting a shooting war and you have an explosion in a munitions factory, you don't necessarily decide to stop making munitions

What an apt analogy!

Post reply on HN