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

221–230 of 233 posts

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

#221

Post by mikem170 »

peytn wrote: post #219
mikem170 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was replying to a post that said "Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses". There's that word "emerged" (in reference to Wuhan) that you pointed out that I also used in my post. I was replying, with a supporting source, that this is not a certainty. From the source I quoted earlier [0]: > "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of o…

Hmm, I’m looking at the Forster paper and I don’t see where they wrote that the origin might not be Wuhan. Unless it’s peer-reviewed and published, I’m not going to count it as evidence. As far as I can see, you’re citing one dude’s speculations. Unless somebody’s followed up on those speculations in the past year, I’m not sure there’s a case here.

I wasn't just citing one dude's speculation, I was attempting to refute some other dude's speculation, the following statement from the original parent post I was replying to:

> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses

I don't know thing the above statement has been proven yet, and there are competing theories.

I wasn't trying to prove that the virus came from somewhere else, I was simply casting doubt on the statement that the virus came from Wuhan.

Because nobody knows for sure. Right?

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

#222

Post by mikem170 »

forcry wrote: post #218
mikem170 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was replying to a post that said "Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses". There's that word "emerged" (in reference to Wuhan) that you pointed out that I also used in my post. I was replying, with a supporting source, that this is not a certainty. From the source I quoted earlier [0]: > "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of o…

>I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary. To be frank, that article is speculation, because they assume a certain variant to be the "founding variant" because of its similarity to existing/known virus. It looks like a bit of circular reasoning to me.

So how come you didn't reply to the original parent's statement that:

> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses

There's no definitive proof of this, either!

Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that the main objection is that there were probably intermediary hosts, and that evolutionary mutations and geography don't always line up.

So does that mean it's 50/50 at this point, he may be wrong, but he may be right?

It's enough for me to question Wuhan as the site of the first human infections. It might be. It might not. I think that's the general scientific consensus at this point. We don't know for certain yet, right? That was my point. Perhaps I could have stated it better.

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

#223

Post by mikem170 »

forcry wrote: post #205
Smashure wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never seen someone say “their argument wasn’t made in front of congress, so it doesn’t hold the same weight” Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.

>Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument. As layman, I am powerless to do so. So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.

I agree that it is tough that there are so many unfiltered voices on this. I've been giving the most weight to dna-based evidence, and explanations from virologists, and critiques from other virologists. It is understandable that others look for different sources of truth as they see fit.

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

#224

Post by baja_blast »

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…

I 100% disagree, GoF research produces viruses as natural as selective breeding. The conditions that researchers expose various animals and humanized mice to infect each other would never happen in nature. This type of research only produces did not help predict the current pandemic, nor did it help with the fight against it, but it may have caused it!

Virologists competing with each other on who can produce the most infectious virus does not make us safer. Pursing research to prove that small pox can indeed mutate to be infectious via airborne aerosols is reckless, it creates a super charged version of a virus that never evolved naturally despite being a common disease for millennia.

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

#225

Post by baja_blast »

thomaslord wrote: post #158
dTal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the gain-of-function research specifically targeting covid-like viruses did not help us prepare or respond to the current pandemic one bit . On that basis alone we should suspend this research. It's not worth the risk.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of gain-of-function research, but on its face this comment sounds a lot like "we haven't developed a vaccine for COVID yet, so we should ban trying to develop a vaccine" would've sounded a few months before the vaccines came out. In scientific research particularly, not having seen results yet doesn't mean we should abandon the research. If gain-of-function research is supposed to…

Except creating vaccines does not have the risk of producing a novel extremely dangerous virus that could kill millions worldwide

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

#226

Post by baja_blast »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #96
jeegsy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 activel…

Agreed - dismissing the lab-leak theory early on without conclusive evidence either way was certainly suspicious. Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't dismiss any theory outright without having hard data to back it up.

Virologists have a bias against the lab leak theory because if true it would threaten their careers. If it's natural on the other hand they get a boost in funding.

It makes sense they are so against the idea, no one wants to be associated with/partially responsible for the death of 4 million + people worldwide, nor do they want to have their careers ruined.

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

#227

Post by forcry »

mikem170 wrote: post #222
forcry wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary. To be frank, that article is speculation, because they assume a certain variant to be the "founding variant" because of its similarity to existing/known virus. It looks like a bit of circular reasoning to me.

So how come you didn't reply to the original parent's statement that: > Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses There's no definitive proof of this, either! Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that th…

>There's no definitive proof of this, either!

I really don't understand what you are saying. Weren't all the first cases identified around Wuhan?

Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.

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

#228

Post by forcry »

mikem170 wrote: post #223
forcry wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument. As layman, I am powerless to do so. So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.

I agree that it is tough that there are so many unfiltered voices on this. I've been giving the most weight to dna-based evidence, and explanations from virologists, and critiques from other virologists. It is understandable that others look for different sources of truth as they see fit.

The sad fact of the situation that argument by some proxy does not really work.

A person goes like "Here is what my scientist say!" and the others are like "No, you are wrong! Here is what my scientist say".

It is quite funny thing.

But in the link you posted

>https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest...

I often found that site to be less trustworthy because of a large part of the beginning of the article dedicated to Ad hominm attack. The most insulting is that they condemn admonim attackes, as and attemt to some kind of virtue signalling, and proceed to do it anyway. This can be consistently observed in articles of similar nature in that site.

Again, since I am not able to judge the article technically, I take this as an indication that the author is extremely biased and is trying to mislead readers.

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

#229

Post by aerosmile »

lamontcg wrote: post #183
beerandt wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with ability (it can), and everything to do with reasoning and motive. The government (and party) only acting in their self interest means they'd share and push any explanation that wasn't nefarious. No they don't have to do anything, but an innocent explanation is something they'd benefit from by disclosing.

No. By addressing conspiracy theories in an Authoritarian system you give them credence through something more or less like the Streisand effect. If you have information control mechanism like the Great Firewall of China and you do not have a free press, then you can more effectively control your domestic population through information suppression. You don't have to explain anything if nobody talks about it in the fi…

Total nonsense. China is on the path of world domination, and they very much care about global alliances (as is clear from their global investments and collaborations, which were utterly lacking in Sadam's Iraq). Comparing China to a guy who was found hiding in a tunnel is highly misleading. China of 2021 is as sophisticated in diplomacy as anyone, and they only fall back to the 1970 version of themselves when it suits their interests - which is a brilliant strategy. They are very carefully playing their chess game when it comes to getting Taiwan back, but when it comes to Covid-19, suddenly we encounter a different face of the same regime.

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

#230

Post by ncmncm »

lamontcg wrote: post #207
ncmncm wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says so right in the article linked at the top of this page. Which was, in fact, the point of his question. If you can't point at any articles like what you parody, then you have no point.

No it doesn't say that.

So, you have no point.
Post reply on HN