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

91–100 of 217 posts

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

#91

Post by postingawayonhn »

rayiner wrote: post #78
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. 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. It’s worth talking about better versus worse covid response, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Most of the G7 didn’t do that much better: from Germany to Italy, and including the US, they’re all in the 1,200 to 2,200 de…

> Countries like Australia that did a little better, down at 700

Australia has had less than 1,200 deaths in total. That's 48 per million.

Edit: NZ has only had 27 deaths in total. Only 5.4 per million.

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

#92

Post by IAmGraydon »

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…

Your logic is absolutely drenched in bias. It makes me curious what you do for a living and where you’re from. You’re argument is like saying that instead of controlling the use of firearms, everyone should just walk around in bulletproof vests. It’s completely and utterly backwards. It is far more efficient to stop these events at the source.

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

#93

Post by bildung »

EGreg wrote: post #86
nradov wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters. Zoonotic viruses that jump to humans naturally tend to be less well adapted to human biology, and thus less contagious. That potentially gives us more time to respond before they evolve really dangerous human adapted variants. Whereas GoF research using human tissue or transgenic animals can produce viruses that are perfectly adapted to humans right out of the gate.

That’s true. I don’t remember any other viruses being this contagious for a long time. Avian flu, swine flu, not nearly as contagious as Delta and spreading asymptomatically. Ebola - not as contagious. Perhaps AIDS was the closest.

Measles, Chickenpox, Rubella, Mumps, Polio, Pertussis, Smallpox, HIV as you mentioned, SARS, Diphteria and the common cold all have basic reproduction numbers >= original Covid, per wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

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

#94

Post by tim333 »

lettergram wrote: post #77
ImaCake wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has a history of responding poorly to pandemics. They let HIV rip through their population before getting serious about it. Regan famously denied it was even happening. It is interesting to contrast this with Australia's quick public health response that saved a lot of lives. It is easy to see similarities with COVID responses, but two timepoints and n=2 do not make for quality statistics. Hopefully the USA d…

The nature of the USA is not to have a federal response. A fairer way to review this is at the state level. That being said, Fauci lead the charge on the AIDS pandemic and this one ...

The presidents at the time saying it's no problem seem to have been more of an issue than Fauci who at least tried to get things done.

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

#95

Post by tim333 »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #83
AmericanChopper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 are going to die in traffic accidents whether i drive home drunk tonight or not, so it probably doesn't matter what I do, right? Understanding why something happened is also a pretty important step in trying to prevent it fro…

I understand the need to understand why but if we can't mount a response to any virus, it again, ultimately doesn't matter. We've instituted safeguards against car accidents (seatbelts, speed limits, harsh penalties for driving drunk, etc). What have we done for wide-spread, novel disease response?

If it was a lab leak it very much does matter and can be dealt with by stopping such stuff.

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

#96

Post by bildung »

rayiner wrote: post #78
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. 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. It’s worth talking about better versus worse covid response, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Most of the G7 didn’t do that much better: from Germany to Italy, and including the US, they’re all in the 1,200 to 2,200 de…

Response type absolutely matters. Sweden has 10x the death rate of Norway, for example.

Norway, Finland, Denmark, even Cuba, a poor country with 3x the population density of the US is significantly below 700.

Australia stands at 45, not 700, BTW.

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

postingawayonhn wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It’s worth talking about better versus worse covid response, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Most of the G7 didn’t do that much better: from Germany to Italy, and including the US, they’re all in the 1,200 to 2,200 de…

> Countries like Australia that did a little better, down at 700 Australia has had less than 1,200 deaths in total. That's 48 per million. Edit: NZ has only had 27 deaths in total. Only 5.4 per million.

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by skohan »

ImaCake wrote: post #72
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…

America has a history of responding poorly to pandemics. They let HIV rip through their population before getting serious about it. Regan famously denied it was even happening. It is interesting to contrast this with Australia's quick public health response that saved a lot of lives. It is easy to see similarities with COVID responses, but two timepoints and n=2 do not make for quality statistics. Hopefully the USA d…

Different societies will have different strengths and weaknesses. The US' priority on individual liberty will generally run counter to solutions which require collective action. But the US system has been fairly good at fostering innovation for instance.

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

#99

Post by walterbell »

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

NIH has a short history of biowarfare, the first date in Table 1 is 1155, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326439/

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

#100

Post by tiahura »

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…

Why are we not nuking the handful of caves in China where these bats live?
Post reply on HN