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

61–70 of 217 posts

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

#61

Post by tim333 »

ameminator wrote: post #58
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-chin…

Also just to illustrate that military labs can screw up a worker at Porton Down, the UK one got bit by a ferret with coronavirus last year, amongst over 100 safety breaches https://archive.ph/IRrgT#selection-867.72-867.83

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

#62

Post by radu_floricica »

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…

How on earth is wanting to know why I was locked in my house for months with men with guns patrolling the streets.... "misplaced"?

This is what 50 years of postmodernism and cultural relativism broughts us. "Why" doesn't matter, don't search beyond what the consensus is telling you.

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

#63

Post by ImaCake »

OP's link is fascinating. It is interesting to see that there is strong evidence for a lab leak leading to a pandemic at least once in the past. I think it is striking how clear cut the evidence for this is: a strain absent for 30 years suddenly reappears. Lab leak isn't the only possibility, but at least it makes the most sense here. I don't think we have the same evidence for COVID.

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

#64

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

TheBlight wrote: post #59
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.

The means by which a virus appears is much less relevant than the response to the virus. We need a robust plan on dealing with viruses regardless of their origin. All this talk on trying to find the origin is missing the forest for the trees.

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

#65

Post by Icathian »

TheBlight wrote: post #59
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.

Just because this one was a lab leak doesn't mean the next one has to be. I think origin would be worth knowing just for the historical record, but ultimately it doesn't matter in the slightest.

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

#67

Post by ImaCake »

radu_floricica wrote: post #62
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…

How on earth is wanting to know why I was locked in my house for months with men with guns patrolling the streets.... "misplaced"? This is what 50 years of postmodernism and cultural relativism broughts us. "Why" doesn't matter, don't search beyond what the consensus is telling you.

It is valid to disagree with the parent comment about wanting to know why this all happened. But you carry a lot of ideological baggage along with it. "men with guns patrolling the streets" is the police and was routine before the pandemic. "50 years of postmodernism and cultural relativism" has nothing to do with what caused the pandemic and no one is saying that it does.

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

#68

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

radu_floricica wrote: post #62
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…

How on earth is wanting to know why I was locked in my house for months with men with guns patrolling the streets.... "misplaced"? This is what 50 years of postmodernism and cultural relativism broughts us. "Why" doesn't matter, don't search beyond what the consensus is telling you.

Because if we had a competent strategy for dealing with the virus, you wouldn't have been locked in your house for months. This is entirely a failure of government. The origin is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.

"Why" ultimately doesn't matter because viruses can just spontaneously evolve in carrier animals, in a lab or by whatever other means causes a mutation where it is now infectious to us. People searching for the "why" are ultimately looking for blame when we should be looking ahead on how to stop the next one (and the current one).

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

#69

Post by EMM_386 »

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…

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. What matters is how we respond to them.

We won't be around to respond to them when the next engineered one is potentially much worse.

This is an enormously dangerous global issue, we need to address origins.

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

#70

Post by AmericanChopper »

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…

> That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research.

The distinction between gain of function research, and creating lab made chimeric viruses is purely semantic. If you were doing gain of function research, you'd spend most of your time creating chimeric viruses. The argument is that "not all chimeric virus experiments are gain of function research, because you might be conducting those experiments for reasons other than making the virus more harmful".

It's just a big semantic contrivance, and the only reason this distinction was every made in the first place is because a certain public figure claimed numerous times that the NIH had never funded gain of function research in Wuhan, only for that later to turn out to be a lie, with the excuse being "oh yeah, but that wasn't _real_ gain of function research".

Post reply on HN