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

The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

journals.asm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#41

Post by naruvimama »

inglor_cz wrote: post #18
xupybd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the comments are all political and some are less than friendly in their tone. I've found that going too partisan on HN ends in down votes. I'd probably agree with some of the politics they're pushing but I'd avoid bringing that discussion here. It doesn't fit with the rules here and I think the rules here are responsible for one of the friendliest environments online.

Plus, it is likely untrue as well. I am a kid from behind the Iron Curtain and I met quite a bit of Marxist thinking in the real world, including former Communist ideologues (I mean, people who were paid by the Central Committee to develop and spread the ideology full time, not just amateurs). But HN does not seem to be "mostly Marxist", though there are a few "eat the rich" commenters, as everywhere; but definitely…

Marxist can mean many things. It is clear in the former soviet states or in the western world.

However, Marxism is a global project. In India for instance Marxists are mercenaries for hire. The network built by the soviets and later coopted by the Americans have their tentacles deep in the English press and universities.

So they do control school textbooks and the minds of the English educated urban kids.

But sooner or later kids figure out this propaganda. And anyway social "sciences" is not what the bright kids aspire to learn.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#42

Post by arrow7000 »

splintercell wrote: post #26
humanistbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.

Does the logic not work the other way? If you start defending censorship of a position, you have lost the debate.

It does not.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#43

Post by artificialLimbs »

shakna wrote: post #25
artificialLimbs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…

> So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them. Pelman v. McDonald's [0] covered that in considerable detail. Markson, has promoted information that is detrimental to health, as positive for health, and so is not aff…

I don't give a damn if she's selling me the literal oil of processed snakes and telling me it will cure my cancer. It is not the purview of the government to be my daddy.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#44

Post by naruvimama »

shakna wrote: post #12
redis_mlc wrote: post #3

Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.

Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…

Here is an interesting case where an international group has gone out of its way to stop treatment by spreading misinformation.

https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#45

Post by mkr-hn »

ctrlp wrote: post #34
xupybd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the comments are all political and some are less than friendly in their tone. I've found that going too partisan on HN ends in down votes. I'd probably agree with some of the politics they're pushing but I'd avoid bringing that discussion here. It doesn't fit with the rules here and I think the rules here are responsible for one of the friendliest environments online.

Even the friendliest forums a liable to politicization during times of political upheaval. 2020-2021 should qualify, imho. Should we ensure HN is a safe place to talk about Rust, compilers, space, css, etc, even as the world is under strict pandemic politics and dissension is raging? Or should we use this niche community try to gather and influence each other's political thinking before it becomes illegal? All the ho…

HN has improved at hosting discussions on the intersection of tech and politics over the years, but it has a long way to go. Most threads on it still turn into slap fights within an hour.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#46

Post by gregwebs »

TLDR for the paper: GoF is not necessarily the strongest candidate for this flu outbreak. However, all the candidates are man-made due to research efforts.

To me this points out that every study on a pandemic-possible virus should have an extremely high bar to meet in terms of both safety and reason for performing the study in the first place. Effectively the only reason that is needed now to perform such research is that you want to publish a paper. The linked paper points out one possible source of the flu pandemic: vaccine development. This may have been a worthy enough cause but greater safeguards are needed. We should take the money we spend on GoF research and spend it on ensuring better safeguards for existing research.

GoF research has an explicit goal is to make a virus more human transmissible: if it is too successful, you end up with the possibility of a pandemic. We now have a COVID pandemic that might have been caused by GoF research. On the flip side we can't show much benefit from this kind of research.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#47

Post by ctrlp »

idiotsecant wrote: post #39
ctrlp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative. I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have sh…

>What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.

If someone makes a claim that many credible scientists are making publicly, the burden to present your evidence on a cable news segment is lessened. Regardless, the fact is she published a book and I assume it's got citations. The commenter merely asserted their claim as true and I wondered if they had good reasons to believe it.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#48

Post by rwmj »

inside65 wrote: post #33
rwmj wrote: post #2

Can highly recommend Ken Alibek's book about the Russian biological warfare programme "Biohazard". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Alibek

What is it you recommend about it?

Goes into detail about all of the Soviet bioweapons programmes, from someone who was quite near the top (I think he was deputy director). It's scary as hell.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#49

Post by ctrlp »

mkr-hn wrote: post #45
ctrlp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the friendliest forums a liable to politicization during times of political upheaval. 2020-2021 should qualify, imho. Should we ensure HN is a safe place to talk about Rust, compilers, space, css, etc, even as the world is under strict pandemic politics and dissension is raging? Or should we use this niche community try to gather and influence each other's political thinking before it becomes illegal? All the ho…

HN has improved at hosting discussions on the intersection of tech and politics over the years, but it has a long way to go. Most threads on it still turn into slap fights within an hour.

How dare you! [0][1][2][3][4]

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#50

Post by quantumsolace »

humanistbot wrote: post #22
artificialLimbs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…

> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.

That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis).

As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited.

A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.

Post reply on HN