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

51–60 of 217 posts

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

#51

Post by ctrlp »

naruvimama wrote: post #41
inglor_cz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

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

#52

Post by tim333 »

walterbell wrote: post #38

In addition to not making new viruses, we should consider a moratorium on further digging up of old viruses, e.g. securing Arctic graves of Spanish Flu victims, or ancient viruses in the sea bed or icebergs, https://www.nature.com/articles/437794a (2005) > It is thought to have killed 50 million people, and yet scientists have brought it back to life. In this issue of Nature, scientists publish an analysis of the ful…

One of the worries is that as the technology becomes cheaper easier and more widespread, more scientists in less good labs will think I'll have a go at that.

Another worrying thing is the incentives for the individual scientists are different for those to the world. If they discover something interesting about the 1918 virus, maybe a paper in nature, tenure. If there's a 1/100000 of screwing up and killing millions then 99,999 times out of 100,000 they are on to a winner. But for humanity as a whole it's an iffy bet. (Article on that stuff https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/562003-an-economists-...)

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

#53

Post by quantumsolace »

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…

Aside for YouTube "tut tut" what has Markson said that disqualifies her? I ask in full faith, as I don't know who she is.

But why does YT get to tut tut anyone? The only basic reason for it is that you fundamentally agree with YT's worldview and are OK with their dominance.

I'd ask for you to turn the tables around, YT censoring PoV you agree with. But we both know that is a ridiculous question; introspection by the hegemon usually is.

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

#54

Post by walterbell »

tim333 wrote: post #52
walterbell wrote: post #38

In addition to not making new viruses, we should consider a moratorium on further digging up of old viruses, e.g. securing Arctic graves of Spanish Flu victims, or ancient viruses in the sea bed or icebergs, https://www.nature.com/articles/437794a (2005) > It is thought to have killed 50 million people, and yet scientists have brought it back to life. In this issue of Nature, scientists publish an analysis of the ful…

One of the worries is that as the technology becomes cheaper easier and more widespread, more scientists in less good labs will think I'll have a go at that. Another worrying thing is the incentives for the individual scientists are different for those to the world. If they discover something interesting about the 1918 virus, maybe a paper in nature, tenure. If there's a 1/100000 of screwing up and killing millions t…

As centuries of history have shown, humans can come up with very creative disincentives for mass-destructive behavior.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

ctrlp wrote: post #29
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.

The debate wasn't about scientific fact. It was about whether a journalist was spreading misinformation and according to whom. The debate is about the Orwellian term "misinformation" and has less to do with science than with Scientism.

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by eecc »

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.

Can I express something that has been whirling in my head for some time already?

So, all you folks shrouding their polemic tripe under the mantle of Freedom and Liberty of Speech, please stop.

You claim Liberty to express whatever crosses you mind, but I want to claim my own right to “Passive” Freedom of Speech: the freedom to form my own ideas, settle into an opinion, build my own ethical compass, free from the manipulation, the doublespeak, the deceit of fake news, astroturf and pure induced mental fatigue on subjects that are important and demand careful and good faith reflection.

Get out of my mind, it’s my own rightful and exclusive property!

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

#57

Post by m0llusk »

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research.

All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know that there will be new viruses. What matters is how we respond to them. In this case the US response was completely botched. This is in part because the team that had been in place to deal with emerging virus threats was disbanded and also in part because the CDC was forced to focus on making the president look good instead of dealing with the virus. What is ultimately being argued here is that instead of being prepared and responding reasonably all we have to do is control research and nothing like this will happen. Unfortunately, this is obviously false.

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

#58

Post by ameminator »

walterbell wrote: post #38

In addition to not making new viruses, we should consider a moratorium on further digging up of old viruses, e.g. securing Arctic graves of Spanish Flu victims, or ancient viruses in the sea bed or icebergs, https://www.nature.com/articles/437794a (2005) > It is thought to have killed 50 million people, and yet scientists have brought it back to life. In this issue of Nature, scientists publish an analysis of the ful…

I would like to point out that the same Winnipeg lab discussed above, seems to have been infiltrated by the Chinese military [0]. If this doesn't concern you, I'd like to bring to mind that our current pandemic is suspected to have been leaked from a lab in China. That's without discussing any of the bioweapon fears or fear of war between the West and China...

[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-pla...

Edit: changed wording to say "infiltrated by" instead of "had most research taken by" as per discussion below

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

#59

Post by TheBlight »

m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

Disagree that it's misplaced. If it was caused by a lab leak it's easier to address before it happens next time via a simple change in protocols for this type of research e.g. all GoF work is done in an isolated environment not in the middle of major population hub.

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

#60

Post by m0llusk »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #43
shakna wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Information you get from an advertising based channel is filtered by the advertisers who provide the money to make the thing run. Shitstorms are bad for sales.
Post reply on HN